Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 11

Time for a purge

With all the talk of how to reduce the backlog, maybe it's just time for a good old purge. The backlog is pretty much the highest it's been for five months. At that point it seemed a good bit of work was done to reduce the number of unreviewed nominations from 200+ down to just 80 in two months. With a bit of effort from some experienced reviewers, we could try get the backlog back down to below 100 again before the end of October. Peanut4 (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If we really want to do this we should have people sign up or something, otherwise this just becomes a perennial discussion. As an aside, I normally do about three reviews for every article that I nominate. Gary King (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons I thought about the suggestion, because it seems we have a new thread every week or so what to do with the backlog and get nowhere. I'd be happy to sign up to a purge. Anyone else? Peanut4 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The main thing is that we have to make sure quality of reviews doesn't drop. Gary King (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For some ideas about how to go about it, see WP:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives. Geometry guy 18:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose a change to the rules to help alleviate the recurring GAN backlog problem. Out of the four articles I have reviewed in the past month, none met the GA criteria without going into a hold for improvements. Listing out the problems and then checking off improvements over the course of a week is a time consuming process that limits the number of articles I can review. Some editors, particularly those with previous GAs, should be able to submit an article that meets the criteria. The backlog report lists many nominators with multiple nominations. At least the top seven have been through GAN many times many GAs under their belt. My proposal, then, is to discourage holds for articles nominated by editors with three or more simultaneous nominations. Some care would need to be taken to ensure that articles are not quick-failed on subjective criteria. Wronkiew (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As a good rule of thumb, I'd suggest never quick failing an editor's first nomination. If we want people to learn how to write good articles, we need to give them a review so they understand how their submission needs to be improved. Additionally, I recommend not quick failing when the nominator is working on one good article at a time. Reviews do take time, but they are essential to getting better quality articles and teaching editors how to edit. If more reviewers are needed, can we recruit via notices at WP:PUMP? Jehochman ^Talk 21:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of checking off improvements throughout the week, you could only check back once. Ask the nominator to leave a note on your talk page after all the issues have been addressed. Of course, the nominator may sometimes need clarification regarding the issues you have raised. If the nominator does not contact you within a week, quickly go through the article again and fail it if the issues have not been addressed.

A hold is the result of a thorough review. In my opinion, an article placed on hold should not be considered part of the backlog. We should not discourage reviewers from placing an article on hold when the issues are minor and can be easily addresed.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I still support this proposal for two reasons. One is that the intent is not to reduce the number of articles on hold, it is to reduce the number of articles nominated and the number of unreviewed articles. There is a set of GA nominations which are submitted by experienced editors who should be able to fix all the major issues with their articles before adding them to GAN. Those articles should either fly through GAN or the editors should wait and work on their articles before nominating more. The other reason is that it is not easy for me to commit to spending time on article reviews a week into the future. It is impossible for me to commit to multiple simultaneous reviews. To ensure that editors are able to fix any minor issues that come up in the review, I propose reducing the hold period for the nominators described above instead of quick-failing. The hold period could be two days instead of seven. That would be a much simpler change to the rules, and it would address the issues you raised. Wronkiew (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may say so, I think your view is naive. I consider myself to be fairly experienced in both writing and reviewing GAs, but I can remember only one occasion when one of my nominations passed without a few comments and being placed on hold. I see nothing wrong with the present system, and plenty wrong with setting a time limit of two days. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a little research on this. The increase in the size of the backlog is probably proportional to the number of contributors. An independent metric of the severity of the backlog is the age of the oldest article. I put together a chart to show the age of the backlog. It's a running 7-day average over the past six months with the present on the right. There are some outliers, but generally the backlog oscillated between 30 and 40 days. Clearly the current backlog is normal. Wronkiew (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. I've been bold and following G-Guy's advice, I've set up an elimination drive page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/October 2008. Anyone who wants to contribute, just add your names there. And if anyone wants to help co-ordinate it, feel free. Let's hope we can get this backlog significantly reduced. Peanut4 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems elimination drives are a big no-no because of this rationale. Hmmmm. Seems like flawed logic to me, but hey. Peanut4 (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

May 2007–April 2008 in purple, May 2008– in orange,

A backlog per se is not a problem: it gives reviewers a choice of work to do! A problem arises when nominators face long delays. In that respect, perhaps the fairest response to the issue of editors nominating multiple articles in a short time period is simply to give such nominations a low priority. Concerning "on hold" times, I've always been in favour of reviewer discretion here: do what is best for the article and Wikipedia. If that means cutting the hold short, do it; if it means extending it while improvements are made, do that. Let 7 days be neither a minimum period nor a maximum, but simply a nominal period.

Here on the right is another G'guy graph of the backlog, this time comparing the articles at GAN year-on-year. The graph shows both the seasonal variations, and the fact that the backlog is consistently higher now than a year ago. Without any action, a naive extrapolation suggests that by next March or April the number will be over 300.

Reviewers should feel free to try a backlog elimination drive if they want to. There are no "big no-no's". Geometry guy 21:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The backlog will continue to grow, because as Wikipedia grows, more GAs are being written, which is a good thing. We need to recruit and train more reviewers. When recruiting reviewers, choose editors who would make good GA reviewers (such as prolific GA writers). Simply recruiting reviewers without training them, however, will lead to many poor reviews. How can we train reviewers? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I signed up to be part of the elimination drive. :) Nikki311 00:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Signing up's no good, get started! ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nikki's done both :) As have I... Dana boomer (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good on ya both. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It does appear we can continue with the drive, backed up by G-Guy's comments above. So I urge more people to try get involved and help reduce the backlog. Peanut4 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that Wikipedia operates by consensus, not authority. I have no view on whether a drive is a good idea or not: I merely think reviewers should try it if they want to. To maximize the impact, however, you do need to advertise it, for example, with a user talk mail shot to active reviewers. Geometry guy 21:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to do that? Peanut4 (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Doing it by hand is tedious, but there's a list at WP:WGA. Try asking Giggy. If he is sympathetic to your mission, he may be willing to put out a mail shot to GA participants using automated tools he has. Geometry guy 21:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My automated tools consist of the AWB I haven't used for months, and a subsequently idle bot. I just tried to run what you've asked for and found that WP:WGA still doesn't have a list that works with (my) AWB. Dr. Cash will know what I'm talking about (and I think he's got it to work, so you might want to ask him). Sorry. Giggy (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Geometry guy's "you do need to advertise it" is dead right. I think it does need a bot, as recipients should be "active reviewers" (? any GA reviewer in last 6 months), minus those who are doing reviews at present. If there's too little time for a bot now, a bot should be developed after this backlog is dealt with and before the next appears. -- Philcha (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A bot is not needed, just some patience (and preferably AWB) and a list: such lists can easily be generated from e.g. Category:WikiProject Good Articles members or Category:Wikipedia Good Article reviewers as well as WP:WikiProject Good articles#Participants. Geometry guy 00:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked the data sources you mentioned, and none of them contains any of the people who've done reviews on articles I've been involved in recently. I still think it's necesary to look for active reviewers, i.e. people who have recently completed reviews, however you define "recently". The history of the GAN page might be a good starting point. -- Philcha (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ratio of online to book sources

For GAR purposes, is it correct that we should prefer a majority of book sources over online sources? Two articles that I'm reading at the moment both have an overwhelming number of online sources with very few taken from books or other printed material. Could someone please point me to a guideline on this question? Thanks. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the topic. An article about a species of bird would mostly be sourced to printed material, but an article about a dot-com would call for online references. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is also WP:verify to consider. Can the web, or the book, references be considered reliable sources of information? Consider the case of a wikipedia article being used as a web reference, if that particular article has no references then it is "unverifiable" at that point in time and it therefore cannot provide verification to a second article which uses the 1st article as a reference.Pyrotec (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It varies hugely. In paleontology peer-reviewed journal articles are more plentiful that any other type of WP:RS. However for WP articles on high-level taxa (e.g. Arthropod, Mollusc), peer-reviewed journal articles are too narrow and detailed, and I had to borrow a text book (by authors whose names I knew from articles). OTOH on non-"academic" topics the situation is more difficult. In chess, for example: books vary hugely in quality, with some obviously written in barely a week; top-class (ex-)players are generally good commentators on play, techniques and the strength of other players, but are generally questionable on chess history; an increasing amount of chess content is published on the web; most of the good chess history sources are web-based because chess history is not lucrative. Reliance on the web is even more essential for video games; the only "dead tree" books are game manuals (increasingly replaced by PDF or HTML files on the CD / DVD) and strategy guides, the quality of which is questionable (see Alan Emrich's criticisms); hardcopy mags consist mainly of reviews written under very tight printing-driven deadlines; all the thoughtful material is on the web. If you push WP:RS too hard in such subjects, you wind up with nothing that satisfies WP:N - which would be ridiculous considering the number of devotees of such games. I imagine the situation is similar in other aspects of popular culture, but WP would be right out of touch if it excluded these. The web can also do things that other outlets can't - for example I added a YouTube video of George Szell in rehearsal, which said a huge amount about his much-discused treatment of orchestras and about "the most graceful left hand in the business".

In short (!!), you have to adjust your expectations according to what's available in the subject area. -- Philcha (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no set ratio of printed sources vs. online sources. Many academic publications today publish both online as well as in print, simultaneously. Often, the online version comes out before the print version does. As long as online sources follow WP:RS (e.g. no personal blogs or advertising sites), there shouldn't be a problem. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I would say that all else being equal (the catch being that all else is rarely equal) online sources should be given preference to book sources, since they're more accessible to people wishing to verify that the information in the article is correct. To underline, I'm not saying that we should be giving preference to news websites (for example) over scholarly peer-reviewed books and academic papers, but that if we have a choice between a scholarly paper published online and one published only offline, we should give preference to the online one (again, all else being equal). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

GAN - GA links

As noted above, over the weekend I added some links between the WP:GAN and WP:GA lists. My motivation was that the organization of the two lists had fallen out of sync. Each subsection at WP:GAN has a corresponding subsection at WP:GA, and these should not be changed without discussion. Within each subsection at WP:GAN is a list of links to WP:GA: these are (or should be) precisely the headings that can be found in the corresponding subsection of WP:GA. The headings need to be changed relatively often as new GAs stretch the classification (e.g., there has been a complete overhaul of the sports and games subsection recently, and I made some further changes myself this weekend). I would ask that editors making such changes ensure that the links at WP:GAN remain in sync with the headings at WP:GA.

I hope that the links will be useful both to nominators and reviewers for deciding where to list articles at WP:GAN: just click on the links in each subsection at WP:GAN to see what the current GAs are in the corresponding subsection at WP:GA. Geometry guy 21:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note. Nominators and reviewers at WP:GAN should not be creating new categories and sub-categories in the page without previous discussion and consensus on this page. The fact that the two lists have gotten out of sync in the first place is indication that this has been occurring. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the links to be very helpful, as I used to have a hard time knowing where to list some of the GAs that I passed. It would be listed in one area on GAN, but nothing seemed to come close on the GA list. Thanks for the updates, Geometry guy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

Anyone want to take a shot at giving a second opinion on Attachment therapy? A second opinion has been requested for more than a month. I'd do it myself, but I did the original GA review, provided a lot of suggestions on the main editor's talk page, and did quite a bit of copyediting...so I don't feel 100% neutral. Thanks. Nikki311 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotation/Sourcing Concerns

Greetings: what is the GA criterion regarding usage of quotations? I recently bumped into Louvre Abu Dhabi at Peer Review (see here), which was nearly all quotations. I also saw that Guggenheim Abu Dhabi was nommed for GA, with similar concerns (see here), after being cleansed (nearly) of copyvios by Moonriddengrl. Note: both of these articles had copyviolations and quotation attribution problems; and they both were featured on the main page as part of DYK. Then they came to GA. Is there a GA criterion regarding maximum use of direct quotations? I am also concerned that these articles went through GA/DYK without any source vetting. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that there is no GA criterion for usage of quotations. The slightly longer answer is that I share your concern, in particular over the Louvre Abu Dhabi's GA, and IMO it ought to be preremptorily delisted. I'm not much happier about the Guggenheim Abu Dhabi article, but hopefully whichever reviewer picks it up will do the right thing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I left detailed notes on the Guggenheim review page; hopefully, they're heeded. I'm not much of a peremptory delister; but, I've notified the nominator that I am getting close to delisting. But, I am becoming concerned about, what appears to be, the growing copyright/attribution/sourcing issues. These problems take hours to assess and fix can seriously impact the encyclopedia's perceived value amongst readers. Is there a way to recommend more focus on these factors in the GA/DYK processes? Lazulilasher (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have pondered this also. And as stated above, there appears to be no criterion for quotations stated anywhere in MoS. I have combed the MoS for indications, but it just makes statements about quotations of a certain length should be in blockquotes and such. I currently just avoid reviewing articles with numerous long quotes, as I have not found editors very amenable to changing them. DYK are supposed to check for copyvio, but they may check only that the statement in the DKY itself is sourced. I would suggest that you notify the DYK talk page, so they can be on the alert that such articles are slipping through. Since DYK's appear on the main page, it is important to Wikipedia's credibility that they be respectably sourced and certainly not copyvio. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had several battles to the death over excessive quoting, probably the worst of which was here. Some people just don't seem to understand that they're supposed to be summarising, not regurgitating. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, just for the sake of clarity, the GA and DYK processes have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, so someone else will have to speak for DYK. So far as GA is concerned, I think the criteria give appropriate importance to copyright and the rest, but the application of the criteria can sometimes be a little patchy. Hence the need for the kind of overview you've demonstrated here and a willingness "to boldly delist where no one has delisted before". :-) No amount of exhortation will make the slightest difference, actions speak louder than words. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I will go over to the DYK, in a bit. It concerns me because it is not encyclopedic (I mean, we've got Wikiquote), and the articles are supposed to be our "good" work. I'm not sure how to go about fixing this. Is it a large problem? I'm starting to become suspicious that it is larger than we'd like to believe. Perhaps a note to the MOS people? I think this should be clarified. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I would hasten to add that Louvre article went through its GA review with blatant copyvios; so maybe there should be a criterion that the articles were verified to be properly sourced. I sense that some look, see a bunch of cites and check that box off. But, it's deeper than that. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I left an edited version of your post of your message on the DYK talk but it would reinforce the issue if you left one too, since you are the original poster. I personally think it is a serious problem that needs attention by DYK if such articles are appearing on the main page. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The only practical answer is constant checking and improvement, hence the GA sweeps initiative. DYK has lots of problems IMO; lack of checking is about the least of them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya, maybe less noms go through, but with more thorough vetting...hmm...I'll head over there now. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy

I'm wondering what to do with this article. It's less than 2.3K, but the nominator says that all possible information is included. The nominator has also stated that he recognizes that the article isn't GA caliber and that he nominated it with the intention of having it fail. Apparently, it is needed as part of a Featured Topic. Since he doesn't feel that it's a possible GA, he just wants to have a failed nomination so that the article will qualify under criterion 3c: "Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status, due to either their limited subject matter or inherent instability, must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed." Is it our job at GAN to give a rubber stamp fail on demand? Is there not some way to go about this without taking time away from reviewers who want to look at articles that actually have a chance of being promoted? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The quality audit is the peer review, and has nothing to do with GAN. The only articles ineligible for GA status are lists, portals, images and disambiguation pages. Articles which are stubs or featured could become eligible if the deteriorate or improve; articles which are inherently unstable are only ineligible if they will become stable in the not-too-distant future.

This article is none of these. If I were reviewing the article, my review would be one line: "Merge with List of NBA champions and/or Walter A. Brown Trophy". There's even a case to nominate for deletion with the same rationale (leaving, however, a redirect). If there really is no more content than this, then it should be part of an article on NBA finals champions, not a separate article. What reader is going to find this useful as a separate article? Put it another way, if this were a section in an article on NBA finals champions, would you spin it out, summary style? It spends almost all of its text describing its context! Geometry guy 20:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have previously glanced at the nomination. I simply cannot believe there isn't more information on what is after all the trophy of one of the most illustrious competitions in the world. To be quite honest, if nothing else is available, I would suggest simply redirecting the page to a section on the NBA page. Peanut4 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with geometry guy; it makes it sound like short articles are inherently bad. There are articles out there which can only get as big as that trophy article. While it can't really be a GA or FA, it seems odd to redirect it just to make another article bigger. I'd support leaving it as it is, personally. Wizardman 21:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That was not my intention. See my comment below. As an article on a trophy, this fails to be broad. One would expect such an article to list trophy winners, for example. But if this were done, the article would overlap significantly with List of NBA champions and hence would be merger candidate. This is not an issue for short articles in general, but is a structural weakness in this featured topic proposal. Geometry guy 20:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So, should the nomination just be removed? Per Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#First things to look for, it doesn't meet the quick-fail criteria (ie. it should not be quick-failed), but a review wouldn't accomplish anything more than the peer review did (especially since the nominator doesn't want it to pass). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would give it a full review to abide by "Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status, due to either their limited subject matter or inherent instability, must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed." Whether it is a fail and can be improved, or a fail and is unlikely to gain GA due to limited subject matter, or is a pass, will then help the Featured Topic. Looking at the article, my first thoughts were for the first of the three options, but I simply don't know enough about the subject to give such a review. Peanut4 (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My comments were not intended to suggest that short articles are inherently bad — quite the opposite. The problem I have with this discussion is that there is no such thing as an article which is "unlikely to gain GA due to limited subject matter". If the featured topic criteria imply that there is, then they need to be fixed. Geometry guy 20:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article, and I placed it on hold to allow for more information to be added. I did a google search and found 9 good sites that discuss the trophy, and the author has added to the article. If another editor could provide a section opinion, I would really appreciate it. There really isn't a lot of information about the trophy, so the article might be comprehensive enough for GA status. Two things that I think might help are (1) a short lead section, and (2) information about the teams that have held the trophy (eg. the Celtics were the first winners in 1984, which team has held it the most time, and perhaps even a table like the "Winners" section of List of Walter A. Brown Trophy winners). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song - question about GA process

Brenda Song was reviewed for GA and the review asked for a second opinion. The reviewer then failed the article. See Talk:Brenda Song/GA1. The article nominator then removed the GA fail [1] and has now re-listed the article on GAN. Is there a minimum amount of time to wait before relisting? The nominator has been working on the article since and it is looking better. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the Failed GA tag. But otherwise, I don't see any reason why an article can't be re-nominated immediately if all the GA requirements have now been met. Peanut4 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Newsletter

Some of you may have noticed that the GA newsletter seems to have disappeared since the last issue (August). Yes, it did go on temporary hiatus. I took a little break from publishing it for awhile due to some other things going on IRL. But it's not gone for good! A new issue will be out at the beginning of November (1-3). If anyone has any ideas or wants to help contribute an article for it, please drop a line on my talk page in the next couple of days.

There may be a few minor changes. Specifically, the GAN Reviewer of the Month may see some significant changes. I started out compiling data from Epbr123's reviewer of the week and selecting one user as the reviewer of the month. When he stopped doing that, I reviewed all of the GA reviews myself, which was enlightening (to say the least), but also took way too much time (part of the reason I stepped back from the newsletter the last two months). I think it's great to recognize some of our outstanding reviewers, but there's got to be a better and less time consuming way to do it! So, the GAN Reviewer of the Month section may not be there -- if anyone has any better ideas, leave them here or on my talk page.

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Icons!

I just recently noticed that there are a number of neat little icons, in addition to "FA star" and "GA plus". Look at all of them now: ...

Maybe we should revisit the possibility of adding, not just the GA-plus sign this time, but all icons to the top right corner of articles? Dr. Cash (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Too bruising. Too much ill-will. More chance of removing the FA star from the main page than adding anything else. Just the way it is. Fossilised. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably right. But then, if we proposed adding the assessed rating to EVERY article's display, that might call a bit more attention to the proposal. It would be less of a "GA is getting uppity again" issue--which, I agree, would have a negative outcome if posed that way. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It would further add to the confusion between WikiProject ratings (A-B-C-Start-Stub) and community assessments (GA and FA). Geometry guy 20:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that different wikiprojects have different ideas about what the lower classes are. Wrad (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Even GA. So far as I'm aware projects can grant project GA status quite independently of the community GA process. In fact this issue came up earlier in a discussion I had with Dr Cash elsewhere. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're totally wrong on that one. Wikiprojects individually should ONLY be using FA and GA class ratings for FA and GA articles, not independently of one another. Any wikiproject that's assigning their own "GA-class" rating independent of WP:GAN is violating the rules. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait... As far as I know, all GA's have to go through here! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Projects can rate an article however they like, including GA. All they can't do is to use/award the FA star. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I still do not know any wikiproject that actually does rate articles as "GA-class" independent of WP:GAN. If there are such projects, that needs to be brought to our attention and the practice discontinued immediately. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I recently stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiProject Podcasting, which was using "GA-class" as part of its assessment scale. The project had two "GA"s, which had ben promoted by a project member without a review (although they hadn't been listed at WP:GA). I bumped them down to B-class, but the project doesn't seem to be active anymore. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Dr Cash). There are probably many other things that you don't know as well. Doesn't give you the right to be abusive in your edit summaries though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being "abusive". But you are wrong regarding awarding GA-class and FA-class. We, as the GA project, should have a very low tolerance for wikiprojects abusing our rating system and awarding "GA-class" without going through established procedures. If wikiprojects did this same thing with "FA-class", I'm sure Raul would come down medieval on their asses! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullcrap. ;-) I'm not going to waste any more time arguing the toss, but it's quite clear that the status of GA and FA are quite different in that regard. What Raul may or may not do if a wikiproject decided to award its own version of FA is neither here there so far as a project doing the same with GA is concerned. Which some clearly do (or have done) whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you a few more icons (which can be browsed here)? ;) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this proposal put to rest a few months ago? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It was certainly discussed at length and given a decent burial. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, any registered user can set a gadget to display the assessments on the page header. (my preferences:gadgets:User interface gadgets:Display an assessment etc) Gwinva (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. But who's turned the colours off? I much preferred it that way. Peanut4 (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've still got colours, although now you mention it, I note that's there's a slight delay as the page loads: they start black and turn coloured a second later. Don't remember that happening before. Gwinva (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's odd because that's what used to happen to me. It was never instantaneous. Now it's just remains black. Though, I've now also just noticed, my purge clock has gone from the top right hand corner. Peanut4 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The gadgets thing is neat, but the main issue with the badge icons would be confliction; who decides whose wikiproject takes precedence, assuming they have different ratings? Since the ratings can vary substantially between projects and different types of articles, all it does is add eye candy and slow page loads. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We gotta staple the Post-It note on this somewhere so it doesn't fly away again. Gary King (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - as well as a Good Article reviewer, I am also in the WikiProject Doctor Who assessment committee, and we over here are supposed to abide by the WP:1.0 assessment scheme. This prohibits WikiProjects from assessing articles as GA-class if they haven't passed a GA, but they can be A-class. Hope this clears things up - weebiloobil (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up on Barney Gumble

User:Tj terrorible1 keeps nominating the article despite the constant edit-warring and his/her refusal to acknowledge the other contributors to the article on the talk page. This is a case of WP:OWN. Anyway, his nomination was reverted by a user yesterday, who pointed out a number of problems on the talk page. Despite this, it was renominated today and reverted by me. The user reverted my revert, which was reverted by someone else (got it???). Anyway, the article will never pass a GAN because of the edit warring, and I thought I'd let everyone know to keep a look out. Don't waste your time reviewing the article until the edit warring has stopped and changes have been discussed in some sort of cooperative manner. Have a pleasant evening. :) Nikki311 22:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Need advice and input before nominating an article

I wrote an article about Singaporean politician Denise Phua. Before I nominate it at GAN, two minor disputes need to be resolved. The first is about the Personal life section and stems from a recent discussion about whether biographies need Personal life sections to be broad. The second is about British English; in particular, whether serial commas should be used due to a section of the MOnSter that is not included in the GA criteria. Since both disputes concern applications of the GA criteria, I invite those who are familiar with the criteria to participate in the discussion to help resolve these disputes, so the article can go on GAN and pass smoothly. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Elimination drive

Thanks to everyone who participated in the elimination drive during October, and anyone else who has reviewed a nomination. We've managed to reduce the number of outstanding nominations by 49 (from 231 to 182) and the number waiting for review by 59 (from 175 to 116). It looks like it was a great effort throughout the month, and hopefully nominators will see a shorter wait for a review. It would be fantastic to see the numbers stay down, but for now, it's a fantastic effort. I'll get round to looking through those reviews by participants in the next few days. Peanut4 (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wallingford Tornado of 1878 - question about previous GA review and screwed up page

I need help with this because I don't really understand the templating procedure. The article was listed today for review with the comment: (Not my nominee; article wasn't reviewed properly, relisted).

However, when I clicked on "Reviewers: To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review." on the talk page, I found that a review was already there that had not been transcluded, Talk:Wallingford Tornado of 1878/GA1. So I transcluded it to the talk page, hoping that would take care of the problem.

How do I get a Talk:Wallingford Tornado of 1878/GA2 for my review? Also, apparently the first review pasted his review on the talk page, so now it is there twice, albeit in somewhat different form.

Can someone help me out? Thanks!, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally confused by the review process. Are you saying it was passed when it shouldn't have been? If you need to create a second review, simply change the page number in the GA nomination from 1 to 2. Peanut4 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

One editor partially reviewed the article, but did not complete the entire process. Thus, I re-nominated the article at WP:GAN to allow for a full review. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. I think I've corrected the talk page. Please revert if I've done something out of place though. Peanut4 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think someone involved in this GA review/nomination should contact the initial reviewer to give him some guidance on the GA process. I notice another editor has raised concerns about another review with him. Peanut4 (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunderland A.F.C. season 2007-08

I've been a bit late in asking, but I feel the review of Sunderland A.F.C. season 2007–08, here, was not satisfactory. I am aware that the reviewer is not common with the GAC reviewing process, but they were confusing with POV, they initially said I was biased towards the home team, in this case Sunderland A.F.C., but then after queries changed their comment to say it was biased towards the other teams. Also I know images aren't a direct criteria, but the reviewer failed that article based on only POV, which I don't think it was, and images. There are two images in the article appropriately licensed, so I don't understance his opinion on this. Its reaching the week hold point, but I think another reviewer could help the process. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes please... and don't give me flak on this one.... I SURRENDER! Sorry for the hash of it... User:Itfc+canes=me ^{Talk Contributions} 09:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

DVD commentaries

My apologies if this has been addressed previously or if this is the wrong forum. I'm in the midst of reviewing Untitled Griffin Family History and have placed it on hold based largely on sourcing issues, since much of the article is sourced to the DVD commentary for the episode. Another editor suggested that this was sufficient as a secondary source per WP:PSTS. I have some concerns with that, since although DVD commentaries are technically "one step removed" from the episode itself, it's still coming from people directly involved in the production and in the absence of other sourcing that doesn't strike me as being sufficient. I'm new to reviewing GAs and in looking at other Family Guy articles that have been listed I see similar sourcing issues. I'm going to request a second opinion on the article but if there's been discussion on this topic previously I'd like to read it. If not, I'd like to initiate it. Otto4711 (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what is being sourced. If it's, say, that a certain process was used to create the animation, I'd imagine that it's safe to use. If the thing sourced was something like how the film was the most popular of its kind, then it should not be used. Gary King (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't being clear in my question. I don't object to the use of DVD commentaries as source material for production and have used them myself (but only in conjunction with other completely separate sources). If you take a look at the article, though, the DVD commentary is used for the bulk of the article's sourcing. In terms of a GA listing, is that going to be sufficient to allow listing (assuming the other issues are addressed)? As the article now stands from a sourcing standpoint, I wonder whether it would even meet WP:N, let alone GA criteria, if this were some random TV episode rather than an episode of an extremely popular series like Family Guy. Otto4711 (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

From when I reviewed the TV episode GA's, the additional sources this article has (reception, primarily) is sufficient for notability and for GA status; it may need more at FA, but this is certainly acceptable from a notability standpoint. An article shouldn't be based only on the DVD commentary without other secondary sources, but the presence of the commentary does enhance the article when those sources are present. --MASEM 00:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You will have saw similar apparent 'problems' on other Family Guy GAs as I've the one that has written them all. They passed criteria from many different reviewers, and why would the producers of the series lie in the DVD commentary as to whether or not a scene was meant to be used in a different episode or whatever is stated? Qst (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting that anyone lied in the DVD commentary and I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. What I said is that I question whether DVD commentaries done by the creators of a TV episode or film qualify as secondary sources. Even without that question I still have strong concerns about the sourcing of this article, as I noted in my review. At least one other editor who looked at the article expressed similar concerns. Otto4711 (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• There are no other ways to obtain such information other than the DVD commentaries. Stuff which was changed last minute before broadcasting will only be known by producers present on the DVD commentary; if it is shown on another website, chances are that they have got all of their information from the commentary. Qst (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• OK, again, I am not simply talking about the DVD commentary. I am talking about the overall sourcing for the article. Otto4711 (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Democracy - Speedy fail?

This article has been nominated, it hasn't been released yet and more reviews will follow. Despite the articles relatively good quality it seems obvious to me that this shouldn't be up for GA until a month after the album is released, so we can get a better picture of critical and commercial reception etc. — Realist² 11:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article is missing some details, important detail that need to go towards the album. But, instead of failing it, why not asked the user who nominated it, to withdraw the nomination. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Or you could place it on an extended hold. Peanut4 (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's over a week until it's released and then you'll want to wait at least 2-3 weeks after that to get solid reception numbers, so that would be a really extended hold, quite possibly over a month, which IMO is pushing the bounds of WP:IAR a bit. I think that withdrawing/failing it would probably be the best option. Dana boomer (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think asking the nominator to withdraw for now (or possibly even an IAR 'administrative removal' if the nominator doesn't respond reasonably quickly) would be fine. No need to fail the nom, it's just a little premature. EyeSerene^talk 18:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will ask him to withdraw the nomination showing him this link. If he doesn't respond we can deal with it then. — Realist² 22:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll withdraw the nomination until a couple weeks after it's released... What exactly do i do? just remove the template from the talk page and remove it from current GA nominees? - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 22:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. — Realist² 22:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It would have been quite acceptable to fail it for criteria 3. There's nothing wrong with failing an article that isn't ready and can't be expected to be made ready in a week, and no shame in taking an article to GA a second time. On the other hand, I think we may have some people nominating things prematurely because we have such a backlog (again, sigh) that they expect to have major details dealt with before an actual reviewer gets around to their article. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You know, I think you're probably right about the backlog. During last month's elimination drive, the backlog was reduced quite quickly and the number of nominations slowed with it. Now the backlog has started to rise, the number of nominations seems to have gone right back up again. I thought it was just a coincidence, but I suspect that you're right that editors are nominating articles expecting to be able to do more work before they are reviewed. Peanut4 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have good reasons to believe there's a lot of truth in that ;) However, as someone who's never been a fan of 'quick-fails', I think where we can offer nominators a little friendly advice, there's no reason not to do so. The process is there to help build the encyclopedia, not the other way around, and we shouldn't fall into the trap of putting process before product. EyeSerene^talk 14:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report

Why didn't the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report run last night?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw a GAN - how to handle - Talk:Article/GA1

The editor of Art deco has told me he does not have time for GAN now. I am wondering how to handle that in terms of Talk:Art Deco/GA1. If I remove the GAN template from the talk page, will a bot put Talk:Art Deco/GA1 someplace, or will it be unhinged and just float? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I would just fail the nomination. If it's "on hold" for improvements to be made, then the GA review will serve a purpose to any future work on the article. Peanut4 (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Either use {{FailedGA}} or start {{Article history}} with a GAN "not listed". Geometry guy 21:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New Template

Hi! I've just created a new template that I think will be useful. It is for use when first creating the review page, before you have time to produce proper comments. I've just moved it to Template: GACurrentReview, and I was wondering what you guys thought of it. Thanks! \ / (⁂) 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks reasonable enough, but I've never felt the need to use something like that, personally. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Argh, I've had a few incompetency issues when trying to improve the template. If anyone wants to help, please do, but I've made a mess of it now. :( \ / (⁂) 01:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It's probably better to use one of the standard templates like {{mbox}}. It's not really necessary considering someone can already tag a template on WP:GAN that's currently under review. Gary King (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the one we currently use. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

GAN review pages

I notice that when Gimmebot updates the Article History, some of the GA review pages seem to be removed from the talk page. There is a link provided to the review in the Article History at the top of the page, so don't think it's particularly a problem. But do other people think the GA review should be left on the talk page or not? Peanut4 (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be left there. I like it the way it is. Gary King (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mona Simpson (The Simpsons)

The article was reviewed and passed by Tj terrorible1 (talk · contribs) who made some changes to the page but did not leave any comments. Tj terrorible1 is a regular Simpsons article editor and had made several edits to the page prior to its nomination. Would somebody mind taking a look at the article and possibly doing another quick review? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Backlog update

I continue to maintain graphs of the backlog, and have updated the comparison graph with 1 year ago. October's backlog elimination drive made an impact, but (as with previous drives) it has been followed by a "bounce-back" to prior levels. The cyclical nature of statistics like these suggests (as I predicted a while back) that we are heading for over 300 articles at GAN early next year. Geometry guy 22:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What do the two lines mean? It seems to me it's a far too regular problem is discussing the level of the backlog, and yet, in my time at GAN, I can't remember a single measure or idea ever really being used. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Total articles at GAN: purple is May 2007-May 2008. Orange is May 2008-. This is for information only, not necessarily to prompt a discussion. Geometry guy 22:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Geometry. — Realist² 02:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent pass of New England

Despite having numerous {{fact}} tags and lengthy, unreferenced paragraphs throughout the article, New England was recently passed promoted to GA-status with this (brief) review. Simply put, I don't believe the article fulfills the GA criteria at this time; personally, I would have put the article on hold so that referencing issues could be taken care of, but of course it could also have been quickfailed for the {{fact}} tags alone. This seems to be a result of the reviewer's lack of experience in reviewing GAs, but since the article has been passed and the page history was updated by the bot, what should happen? I'm never certain what to do in these matters. María (habla conmigo) 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:GAR Gary King (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I also saw this article. I wanted to quick fail it, but I did not have time. So go to GAR. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article was delisted by Gimmetrow for incorrect info. María (habla conmigo) 23:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Where should I reply?

I listed an article for GA review. After receiving the review, I made the changes. However, I wasn't sure where I was to reply to the reviewer? His talk page said not to reply on it for GA reviews. I decided to reply on the review page at Talk:Nassak Diamond/GA1. However, then I wasn't sure whether to reply under each comment or in some other way. The review used Template:GAList2, which didn't seem to allow for interleaved comments. I ended up replying at the bottom of the review page, explaining how I addressed each of his comments. For future reference, what is the correct procedure to notify the reviewer of a reply? Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 23:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Typically, in depth replies to a reviewer's comments should be placed on the GA review's subpage (which you did) so the discussion can be kept in one place. Since ThinkBlue used the template, it's fine to reply underneath it; you can also create a subsection in order to separate the original review from additional comments/suggestions. There's no right or wrong, though, and each review/reviewer is different. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's expected that everyone has their own way to reply back. There's really only two options: reply under each point, or in one big block at the bottom. Gary King (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding replying under each comment or not, as Gary said, it's really up to you. If, after a couple of days, the reviewer hadn't responded to comments on the talk page I'd drop them a note on their talk page, regardless of any headings. Nev1 (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• My post above was in reply to my first time listing a GA for review. On Wikipedia:Good article nominations/guidelines in "How to nominate an article", it may help editors new to GA to revise it to read something like

  "It may take several weeks for your nomination to be reviewed, as this page often has a large backlog. Once reviewed, replies to a reviewer's comments may be placed on the GA review page. In the mean time, you can help by reviewing other articles if you are a registered user."

  Just a suggestion. Thanks for your replies! Keep up the good work. -- Suntag ☼ 03:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

For what I think are going to be short discussions I add my response under and indented from the reviewer's comment. If discussions of a point are likely to get large or if they grow beyond a couple of short exchanges, I'll create an internal link under and indented from the reviewer's comment, e.g. [[#issue X]], then at the bottom of the review a target for that link, e.g. {{anchor|issue X}}, and then treat it as a new thread. For example see the "response below" items in Talk:Paleontology/GA1. --Philcha (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A little help needed

I'm currently reviewing my first article and I'm having a little problem with the cheatsheet. I understand the fields (putting y, n, or ?), but I can't seem to figure out how to place comments after a certain criteria. A little help? DiverseMentality 16:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments go in the optional fields for each question '1com', '2com' etc. E.g: |3bcom=Occasional excessive detail. See Template:GAList/doc for more examples. Whitehorse1 17:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand now, thanks a bunch. DiverseMentality 17:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure. Whitehorse1 18:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pressure of work

Pressure of work this week means that I need to withdraw from my GA review of Margaret Thatcher. How can I do that?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 11:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove it from WP:GAN and remove the Good Article template from Talk:Margaret Thatcher. Gary King (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't want to remove it from WP:GAN, as I very much hope someone else will review it.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 16:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say, remove your name from the listing at WP:GAN and leave a note on the review subpage, but you've already done both! Geometry guy 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Saint Alphonsa

An user changed Saint Alphonsa assessment to GA here . Was it after a formal GA review process ? -- Tinu Cherian - 15:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears not. The change was made at 08:51 on 4 November 2008, so I checked the Good Article nominations on 2 November 2008 - here: [[2]] and at 23:00 on the 3 November 2008 : here: [[3]]. The article is not listed. So it did not go through the WP:GAR process.Pyrotec (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "C"-class. María (habla conmigo) 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and changes done-- Tinu Cherian - 03:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving up nominations

What's to be done about editors who sneak their nominations further up the list? Bradley0110 (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Burn like a witch? — Realist² 14:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Or you could just sneak them back down the list. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Drat! I was looking forward to a witch burning. Oh well...I moved the nomination back down and left a message on the user's talk page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still convinced my suggestion was the most rational. — Realist² 16:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why hadn't I ever thought of that?!?! :) Nikki♥311 02:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Because you're smart and experienced enough to realize that many, if not most, reviewers pick whatever interests them, irrespective of nomination order? Oh, and ethical enough to avoid cutting in line, I presume. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't that the point with the witch burners, they never assumed good faith, just kept on burning away their fellow villagers. — Realist² 11:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

eye but in England we hanged them - not so time consuming (collecting all those faggots) but same result. Maybe a combination of the two! Edmund Patrick – confer 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is still experimental, but may be a helpful resource. It is automatically updated, and hence not so easy to fiddle. Geometry guy 20:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely useful in seeing some problems with nominations. For example, the editor who tried to nominate McKechnie Field placed all of the nomination coding on the article's talk page rather than at WP:GAN. Same with Riverside Park, Dawson Springs. Queen's University and University of Waterloo still have GAN tags on their talk pages, although LAAFan removed them from WP:GAN (with the message to see the thread at WP:ANI...since that was a month and a half ago and LAAFan is now retired, I'm not sure what should happen with those either). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What about reviewers that don't review items in the order they are listed?  :-) (It's bit frustrating seeing articles submitted days after yours getting review earlier) Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The best way to move your article up the list is to review all the others in the group! Wrad (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

On GA Status

Hello, how can I have my article be elevated in the GA Status? Right now, it is in B class. Yes, I have already read the instructions and I know that in order to be nominated, an article needs someone who has not contributed significantly to it. So what will I do now? Here's the article: History of University of Santo Tomas Thanks. --Pampi1010 (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who significantly contributed to the article can nominate it for a review; the reviewer can't be significantly involved with the article, though, to avoid a conflict of interest. DiverseMentality 08:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. Got it already. --Pampi1010 (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you just gotta wait from here on. Gary King (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song

Resolved

Jclemens will review it regardless of queue order. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused but this edit seems to have a user putting a nomination in out of nowhere with a pre-dated time stamp (from October 21, 2008). I tried to get ahold of what was going on with the article's previous reviews and from what I can see, the article is up for renomination, but does that mean that it can be placed that far up on the list? Shouldn't it be at the bottom of the list in the corresponding category since it originally failed its first GA review? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 01:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

if you go through the history at WP:GAN, you will see that's when it was originally nominated (second round). At that point someone removed it because of a GAR. The GAR was unresolved and returned it to GAN. It was therefore returned to the spot it was previously stopped. Gimmetrow 01:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The article failed its GAN. hence the GAR. It should be re-entered at the end of the list. Please stop this continual rewriting of history. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say... Gimmetrow, it looks as if you were the one who requested the GAR in the first place, here. I thought the purpose of the GAR process was if a GAN was failed and someone felt that it was failed under incorrect circumstances. Since the outcome of the GAR was to fail the article and to renominate it (not to list it under GA status), don't you think it should go to the end of the list? I think that what you did is unfair to the dozens of other nominees that you "cut in front of". – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 02:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that removing an article already listed at GAN, then delaying it for months, is unfair. Gimmetrow 02:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

However, you renominated the article as soon as it was failed. Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of the GAR process in the first place? I mean, it even states what to do on the failed GA template: Brenda Song was a nominee for Arts good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. I didn't mean to refuel whatever history you and Malleus Fatuorum have; that was not my intention and I truly apologize to the both of you. But, personally, from a neutral point of view, I feel that the process that the article went through (failed GA review, failed GAR, removal of the immediate renomination) was correct, albeit you feeling it unfair, and that the article should be put at the bottom of the list just like any other failed GA/failed GAR article should have to do. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 02:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't start the GAR. I listed it at GAN on whatever the date was. Someone else removed it. Were it up to me, at that point I would have closed the GAR and left the GAN to go. Could I have done that? Now that the GAR's over, why shouldn't the original nomination be restored. The GAR only served to delay the article's GAN, which is unfair to the article. Gimmetrow 02:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The nomination failed. This is now a new nomination, not a restart of the old nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I believe you're missing the point that myself and Malleus Fatuorum are trying to make. You suggested demanded that a GAR be started, which leads me to believe that you felt the failing of the article was incorrect and that you supported a GAR of the article (even though it seems that you took no part in this process). So a GAR was started for you, per your request. Whether or not you started the GAR is irrelevant. The renomination was removed because of the GAR request that you made. Now, I believe that the GAR should have been closed much earlier than it was but I don't believe it was deliberately held open to prevent the article from being renominated again. If the GAR failed, then it is like it failed another GA review, therefore a new nomination should be made and that is, from what I can see, the consensus of the GAR. This may feel unfair to you, but I believe that it is doubly unfair to the nominators of 30-some other articles, who have been thoroughly patient, that have to be pushed down the list. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 03:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Had the GAR not started, the nomination would have been in place all this time. So do you accept as precedent than any article, already listed at GAN, can be taken to GAR and delayed indefinitely? Can you see the potential for abuse there? Gimmetrow 03:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. That nomination never failed. Or are you trying to rewrite history? Gimmetrow 02:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you in full possession of your faculties? This looks plain enough to me.[4] It's even headed "GA Fail". --Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop your insults, MF. That's a different nomination. Gimmetrow 03:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite. A different nomination. Therefore the nomination you made today goes at the bottom of the list, under today's date. Understand now? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't nominate it today. I reinstated the old nomination that was removed without my knowledge. (I didn't realize it was removed until some weeks later.) Gimmetrow 03:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Now I see the problem. You're saying that it should have stayed in the queue while it was at GAR. This is actually where I'd have to disagree myself. Articles aren't put in their old spot if the GAR doesn't work out. Wizardman 03:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the article at GAN. At that point I had no interest in GAR. It was nice of some people to start it, but it was just going to be a delay. That GAN was removed without comment. Had I noticed the GAN was removed at that time, I would have objected to the GAR and had the GAN reinstated immediately. Gimmetrow 03:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I see the problem now. Basically when it failed and was send to GAR, those who created it basically screwed you out of the queue order, to put it bluntly. Wizardman 03:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The article failed at GAN. It was then taken to GAR, where there was no consensus to list it. Why is that so hard to understand? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. I've moved the nomination to the end of the list, where it ought to have been put in the first place. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. I asked MF to start a GAR at one point. MF refused. I listed it at GAN. MF, please stop this abuse of process. Gimmetrow 02:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I am very close to taking formal action against you for your continual abuse Gimmetrow. I strongly suggest that you try and get your arse in gear PDQ. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And your continued abuse of the GA process to abuse and demean editors is blatant abuse, as far as I'm concerned. Gimmetrow 02:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• It's really a shame that the order it's put in is such a big issue - that's a problem that transcends the bickering between you two. I see that it was put up for reassessment, and relisted on GAN. Can either of you show me precedent for one's actions of the other? I think I know which way it's usually done but I don't want to take sides right now. Wizardman 02:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• The order is one issue, but what triggered this spat was Gimmetrow's revival of his attempts to rewrite the article history to suit his version of events, for which he had already received a 3RR block.[[5] --Malleus Fatuorum 03:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Let's not forget MF's own attempts to rewrite history on the article, and MF's personal attack.[6] And MF's recent removal of the GAN from the talk page. Gimmetrow 03:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, it was SandyGeoriga with the help of jbmurray who insisted on the GAR, not any of the editors being blamed now. I voted for relisting on GAN immediately. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Would you like to provide a diff showing I "insisted on a GAR", Mattisse? Oh, never mind, you don't do usually do that; you say what you think, sans diffs or evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, SandyGeorgia, I could find the diffs, if I wanted to bother, where you contacted Jbmurray and asked him to fix the situation, and he, using poor judgment, selected GAR. Then you registiered your opinion, which entrenched the GAR situation, as it had to be refuted, even by Jbmurray. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• If you can find those diffs, then do it. Otherwise, stop tellling stories, or one day, that behavior is going to catch up to you. Here's a hint:[7] Since I have never once seen you strike a false statement even after they are pointed out to you, I won't hold my breath. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)\

• SandyGeorgia, since that diff you provided has nothing to do with me, what are you holding your breath for? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying Mattisse, but then what is this and this? I apologize for my confusion on the matter, but from the GAR page, it seems that jbmurray used the request of Gimmetrow as part of his/her reasoning behind starting the GAR. And it seems that SandyGeorgia disagreed with the GAR, and the failed outcome, in the first place. If anything, I disagree with the article being failed in the first place and feel that it should have been put on hold, but unfortunately, that is not how it went down. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 03:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I neither agreed nor disagreed; I clearly prefaced my statement by saying I don't even pretend to understand these GA processes. It is my understanding that Jbmurray was intending to help move the situation forward; whether a GAR was the right way to do that or not, I really don't know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies SandyGeorgia for taking your writing out of context. That was not my intent. Thank you for coming in and clarifying. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem; it's the pattern that needs to be addressed (not yours). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow: Well, had you not suggested (twice) that a GAR be started and had the article been placed on hold rather than failed, we wouldn't be here, now, would we? And had you taken part in the GAR and said that you didn't really want a GAR to be started in the first place, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm sorry that I'm getting snippy, I really am, and maybe this is my cue to exit this discussion, but it really is frustrating that simply because you feel that you have been wronged, you have to punish dozens of other nominators. I don't believe that GARs should be started in order to keep an article from being renominated for GA status, nor did I ever say so. And nor do I believe that that is the reason the GAR was created and nor do I think you should use it as an excuse. *now exiting before my ass gets blocked* – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 03:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been bumped around GA for three months now. So much for a so-called "light" process. Gimmetrow 03:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Who said that it was a "light" process? No one ever told me the GA process was "light" when I nominated my article (which has been on the list for over a month now), so I knew that this process could take a long time to complete. There are many articles that have waited months for a review. Yours is not the only one. I'm sorry that the GAR screwed you, but that is not my fault, nor is it the fault of the other nominators or MF, correct? Just bide your time. It will get reviewed eventually. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 03:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotta say, this was a whole lot of digital ink spilled over nothing important. I will review the article, just as I would prioritize any new GAN from an article which I had previously failed myself. Bickering over the queue order is just silly, when it's not really a queue to begin with, since any reviewer can grab any nom'ed article from any place at any time. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Funny how all this "bickering" got Gimmetrow his/her way. I agree that all of this was over nothing...all I did was wonder why a nomination had appeared out of nowhere...that'll teach me a lesson. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 04:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going easy on the article just because there was a controversy. It's on hold and there's some definite work to be done here. Frankly, the fact that someone took the prior fail to GAR is kind of silly--it's not GA-worthy yet, in my book. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens: I did not mean to insinuate that you would "go easy" on the article. I'm happy that you are willing to review the article and I hope that you treat it as you would any review. In light of all of this craziness, Gimmetrow has indirectly raised a good point: I find it unfair for some nominations to wait for months on end for a review while others get reviewed after only a few days of being put on the list. Has this been discussed before? – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 05:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think the consensus was that trying to make a queue approach (FIFO) would result in a lower total throughput. There are a number of editors who do pick chronologically. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 05:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really sure if I find that funny, Ms. Sarita. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Juliancolton: Well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it. I find it hilariously ironic and you don't. Oh well. Whether or not it's "funny" is irrelevant to the topic at hand. – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 05:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but comments like, LOL! Funny how all this "bickering" got Gimmetrow his/her way don't help the situation along. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, a matter of opinion. I don't see how comments like Not really sure if I find that funny help the situation along either. But whatever. I'm sorry if my comment somehow offended you but I won't bite my tongue and treat Wikipedia as if it is a place where I must keep all WP:Socially "unacceptable" comments to myself. I don't see how any of this helped anything or anyone. All I did was ask a question and tried to get clarification on why something was done and attempted to explain why it didn't make sense to me. In the end, the article got reviewed and no there are no hard feelings (at least not between myself and Gimmetrow). This will be my last comment in this particular thread as this topic has been resolved and laid to rest. If you wish to continue this silly little side conversation, you are welcome to come visit me on my talk page but frankly (and I quote Jclemens on this), it would just be a waste of digital ink. Cheers! – Ms. Sarita ^Confer 23:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for disruption to GAN subpages; normal service now resumed

A well meaning, but mistaken edit made to {{GAN/preload}} on November 22nd by Suntag has caused many GAN review subpages to be added to Category:Wikipedia GA templates. Sorry for not spotting this sooner: the template was off my watchlist. I've asked Suntag to fix the 60 plus pages affected, but reviewers who started reviews between 22nd November and about an hour ago may like to remove the "noinclude" tags and the category which the above diff added. Please don't remove the noinclude tags that surround the article, edit and history links. If you're not sure what to do, please leave it. I hope Suntag will do the responsible thing. If not, I will fix it.

I'm sorry if this has caused unnecessary confusion and have watchlisted the template again. GAN regulars with template experience may like to watchlist this and other GAN process templates, to minimize the risk of future problems. Geometry guy 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did that edit cause problems if it was wrapped in noinclude tags? Even if the template was substituted, shouldn't it still not include noincludes? Gary King (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The template isn't transcluded or substituted; instead it is used as a "preload" into the edit box when you create a GAN review subpage (hence the name). The "noinclude" simply prevents the category from being added to the article talk page, but it is still added to the GAN review subpage. Geometry guy 22:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah right, the preload. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rule to make only established editors review for GA status?

Recently I came across a GA review, of the article Touch the Clouds, and a new editor (Great Gall) comes out of nowhere and passes the GA review! I don't think this is a valid GA review.. will more editors look into it? Bluptr (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is! I've been viewing the articles progress for quite some time now and I think it is a great article. It fits the criteria so I passed it. I fail to see the problem here. Great Gall (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact it fails the criteria on a number of levels, not least of which is the inadequate lead. It is very far from a "great article". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it was not properly assessed so it removed I from the GA lists and removed the GA status from the article. The nominator should resubmit it for a proper review. Great Gall, you may resubmit it for another review. Otherwise, I will list it at GAR. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Then at least put B-class back in the article. Oh, and one more thing: I could give it a proper review myself, I wrote this one in a hurry. Great Gall (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you carry out this review in a hurry? What was the rush? I do not think it would be appropriate for you to conduct another review on this article, given your already stated opinion that it is "great" when it plainly fails several of the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the concept that only established editors should review articles for GA and higher. User:Great Gall seems a single-purpose account formed specifically to get this article into GA status. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, why on earth one I do that? I mean, that makes no sense: as I said, I have been a veteran wikipedia-reader. I've read wikipedia ever since 2002! Now I join in, think I know the rules pretty well, and decide to review an article I think should pass GA nominations. And all of a sudden I am a worthless newbie in your eyes - that not fair man. I mean, when you'll only let "established" users review it now because of me that makes me feel bad. Have I messed things up for new users wanting to review? Oh, and what would be a "established user", what would be the criteria for that? Great Gall (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be better to talk about the article itself rather than the experience of the editor. I wouldn't have passed the article. Wrad (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Just looking at the lead it clear does not pass WP:GA. At the very best, it should have been placed on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the lead then, peanut? Oh and Wrad, why would you not pass it as an article? Anyway, glad it is not my "expierence as an editor" that lead you guys to this conclusion.Great Gall (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the good article criteria you'll see that 1b links to WP:LEAD, which says: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." Do you really believe that the single sentence in this article's lead fulfills that role adequately? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at WP:LEAD. It is clearly not long enough to summarise the rest of the article. Peanut4 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Great Gall, a good way to evaluate an article for GA is to go through the Good article criteria, making sure the article fulfills them. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

...but he says he did look at the criteria. Gall, the article is close. I would have put it on hold and asked for citations in a few paragraphs and an expansion of the lead, maybe some copy-edits here and there. Wrad (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm suggesting going through the criteria somewhat systematically, even if briefly. Then the lead issue would have become immediately apparent. Perhaps the nominator can resubmit the article to GAN. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest restoring this article's GA nomination. It hardly seems fair to push it back to the end of the queue because of a disputed review. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Guys, since this is a fairly substantial proposal I suggest leaving the merits of one article to that article's space or GAR. Now, looking at the proposal, I see two possible net benefits: 1) reviews are more comprehensive, less are listed that do not meet criteria; 2) some (how much? no idea) logrolling of "you review my article, I'll review yours" would be diminished. Possible drawbacks: reduction in reviewer pool (which can be ignored if we're going for quality vs. quantity, or if you believe that they aren't likely to review much as newbies anyhow.) My main issue is with how "established" editors be determined. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This proposal has been under consideration for some time, here. What's being discussed here is the GA listing of one article, Touch the Clouds. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Define established. Is it an established member of the GA WikiProject, or an established member of Wikipedia? My opinion would widely diverge depending on which one of the two meanings is employed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the link I gave above.[8] --Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The link boils down to a "we shouldn't try doing that, it will open a can of worms, let's use a lead reviewer instead" attitude, so I'm slightly lost there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure any suggestions you might care to make would be welcomed there. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick check...The Touch the Clouds article has very small lead, and there is no way this can be a Good Article now. Bluptr (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There is one very obvious reason why this proposed rule will ruin the GA process. All experienced reviewers were once new reviewers who gained experience by doing reviews. If this proposed rule is implemented, the number of experienced reviewers could only decline (for example, some may leave Wikipedia). These experienced reviewers would be unreplacable because there would be no new reviewers. Eventually we might face a one-year backlog.

Far better is a comprehensive reviewer training system, as has previously been suggested. With experienced reviewers helping new reviewers learn the ropes quickly, there will soon be more experienced reviewers. Experienced reviewers could also check reviews conducted by new reviewers to deal with poor reviews. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus that the nomination should be restored, and with a view to putting it on hold or failing with a full review (it clearly doesn't meet WP:LEAD, as several reviewers point out). I agree with JLWS and others that it would be undesirable to introduce any sort of rule defining "established" reviewers.

Imperfect reviews happen, guys, but we've got a mechanism for dealing with them: GAR. Legislating for every possible slip-up is a recipe for even more bureaucracy. Geometry guy 15:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case I suspect it may not even be a case of a new and inexperienced editor, but a sock - although I guess that the CU should decide either way. - Bilby (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bilby, what is a sock? What makes me one? Great Gall (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

See this - Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Pyrotec (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you are or not, but when a situation arises where there are marked similarities in editing styles and interests between editors, it can be worth looking into - hence the checkuser, which normally clarifies things one way or the other. Hopefully it is all unnecessary, and there is nothing to be concerned about. Sockpuppets aren't necessarily bad, either - it depends on how they are used. - Bilby (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rejecting an article on its subject not merit

Recently, som time ago I nominated the Cologne Mosque project for GA status. An editor failed it, after saying that "This article is tagged as a future building. I would wait till it is completed then renominate."

I can understand the user's concerns. Usually existing buildings are more notable than non-exiting ones. The subject of this article is also a controversial one, which is indicated by a previous editing conflict. However, both the editing disagreements, as well as the news controversy surrounding this building are things of the past. Also if the subject ever was to change drastically, and the article didn't reflect that, it can always be taken off the GA list.

Finally, I was quite surprised that an article can be failed, not on its own merit, but on the basis of the subject it talks about. In other words, no matter what I do (or what any other wikipedian does), this article can't achieve the GA status because of factors out of our control.Bless sins (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A comment you made during the GA review surprised me: "... what if the mosque is never completed? It will still have been notable ...". In what sense is a building that was never built notable? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's rare, but it can happen, especially if the building's design becomes well-known. The Tribune Tower in Chicago was built after a widely published design contest; the second place un-built entry by Eliel Saarinen ended up influencing the design of a bunch of subsequent buildings, including the PacBell Building in San Francisco, the American Radiator Building in NYC and the Gulf Building (Houston). See 1922 Chicago Tribune Tower Contest for more details. Here, in the case of the Cologne Mosque project, its notability might be established from the intensity of publicity and controversy the project attracted. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If a building's design becomes well known, then the subject of the article ought to be that building's design. Not the building that was never built. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

As Binksternet said, the mosque has already established notability, in part because of the design (such as the tall minarets). The case is also cited in articles such as "The politics of mosque-building" (Economist), indicating that the response to the project has greater consequences for the Muslim community in Europe than it seems.Bless sins (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

For uncompleted buildings, the issue is stability, not notability. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something here, but the title of this article is Cologne Mosque project: it is an article about a controversial project to build a Mosque in Cologne which has divided the city and attracted international attention. It is clearly a notable project and controversy independent of whether the Mosque is built. The article has had only one edit this month, and only 50 since February 11. In what sense is that unstable? How does that make it impossible to carry out a GA review? Ironically, the article is pretty stable at the moment because the Mosque isn't being built! Will it become unstable if construction starts? There's a chance of that, I suppose, but that is crystal ball gazing, which as I have said many times, is a matter for the (nonexistent) Good articles precrime department.

Every single time stability has been discussed at GAR, the principle that almost every article is eligible (in principle) for GA status has won out over stability concerns. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/1 is just one example. Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Mike_Gravel/1 is another. I recommend restoring this article to the nominations queue and giving it a proper review. Geometry guy 14:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In an article about a building under construction, it is reasonable to expect a series of edits that could change the article substantially from its current form. For most GAs, this isn't the case. Picking three current GAs at random: (1) Thomas H. Tongue is dead and it's not likely that the information known about him will change, (2) The One with the Prom Video isn't likely to change much, and the reception has already been noted (comments, etc. about an unfinished building's finished appearance obviously aren't available yet), and (3) Texas hold 'em has been around for a while and is relatively settled. As Geometry guy mentioned, though, this article is about the project, not the mosque. In that regard, it appears stable. If it was about the mosque itself, however, I wouldn't find it any different from an ongoing presidential election campaign or, heck, the 2008-09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team (a current GA nominee that is, by definition, unstable). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the nomination was last June, my suggestion to restore it doesn't make much sense. I've opened a community GAR instead. An alternative is simply to renominate. Geometry guy 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Community GAR reminder

This is a general reminder about WP:Good article reassessment, the page where community reassessments of good articles, GAN review decisions, and so forth take place. It is used less now that we have individual reassessments and review subpages, but it is still important. In the thread above on the Cologne Mosque project, previous community GARs provided valuable input on what is the community interpretation of the good article criteria. It is like case law.

However, this doesn't work so well unless regular reviewers contribute to community reassessments, and even help to close them. There are only 6 cases open right now, but they all touch on borderline and subjective issues of broadness, stability, neutrality and verifiability, issues that affect many GAs. I encourage reviewers to take a look and add comments. Geometry guy 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. If you want to keep track of new community reassessments, watchlist User:VeblenBot/C/GAR, the bot page which maintains community reassessments.

How about if I say "pretty please"? It would be a pity if GAR became "G'guy Adjudicates Regally"... :-) Geometry guy 21:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems I find with GAR is in deciding when a discussion has "run its course", plus all of the faffing about a close entails of course. Attachment therapy is one good example; IMO it ought to have been closed as a delist ages ago ... actually on looking at it again I see that it has now been delisted. Oh well. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr pda/Good article statistics

This is a useful page that I requested from User:Dr pda, which he recently created. Perhaps we could link to it from WP:GAN, or somewhere where it could gain exposure? Gary King (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be about WP:GA not WP:GAN. It could at least be linked from WP:GA/S. Geometry guy 21:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Reviews not transcluding

My reviews do not ever seem to transclude to the article's talk page. c.f. Talk:Spoo/GA1. an someone take a look and tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done, and did you see what I did on the talk page? If you still don't get it, just leave a message here or on my talk page. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to add the transclusion to the talk page e.g. {{Talk:Spoo/GA1}}. Peanut4 (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Otto4711 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on PR

Is there any rule, such as the one at WP:FAC, that states an article is not able to be up for GA and Peer review at the same time? I don't see this in the instructions. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, no there isn't. I've certainly seen and even reviewed articles at both GA and PR. Peanut4 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

GAN and PR are allowed at the same time. The reason, I imagine, being that a GAN review doesn't mean the article is at its best; that's what FAC is for. Bringing it to GAN just asks for input from a single person; bringing it to FAC really means that you think the article can't be improved much more. Gary King (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:Layout

WP:Layout#Links to sister projects has been disputed for a while now, and we now have a new related issue under discussion at WT:Layout#Sister links. WT:Layout is one of the 6 WP:WIAGA style pages. Opinions are welcome, and while you're there, please take a minute to read the current version of WP:Layout, and if anything doesn't look right, please say so on the talk page.

Note that you can get monthly updates of the 7 content policies pages, the 6 WIAGA style pages, and 22 other style pages at WP:Update. The November updates are done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding Good Articles to the main page

There is a relevant discussion involving adding GAs to the mainpage going on here Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal#Introducing_GA_to_main_page. Some of the ideas proposed include creating a separate WP:FA-like box to feature the GA, incorporating into DYK or not including GA on the main page at all. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm against putting individual good articles on the main page, it leads to clutter. However, replacing "More featured articles" with "Featured Articles · Featured content · Good Articles" at the end of Today's Featured Article and replacing "More featured pictures" with "Featured Pictures · Featured content" would be good. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:GA nominee

It's possible I'm missing something obvious here, but how come this edit, that added the GA nominee template to a talk page, made the template box show that the article is being reviewed (when it isn't)? The template documentation shows the same thing in its second example - the template's "status" field is blank, yet the template displayed says the status is "on review"? Thanks, Somno (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the GA review page has already been created: Talk:Palace Hotel, Perth/GA1. The GA review template on the talk page checks to see whether there is already a GA1 page, and if there is, it assumes that the reviewer has created the page and is reviewing the article. In this case an editor has explained the rationale for nominating the article for GA, much like how you would do for PR. Does that answer your question? Apterygial 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thanks Apterygial. Makes sense now. :) Somno (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please help with the ASCB workshop

Hi everybody. The American Society for Cell Biology is hosting a workshop this Tuesday, the 16th, to give their scientists a crash course in editing Wikipedia (see User:Proteins for more details). The workshop will focus on creating cell-biology articles with the aim of quickly improving them to GA or eventually FA quality. Proteins and I are running the workshop, but we could benefit from your help! We'd like to find friendly, online Wikipedians who will greet the newbie scientists and offer to help them with their nascent articles.

The workshop will run from 12:30-2:30pm local San Francisco time. We will be speaking until ~1pm, and the participants won't start their user pages until 12:45pm at the earliest. We'll ask them to add the template {{ASCB workshop}} to their user page, which will add them to the Category:ASCB 2008 Wikipedia workshop participants category. Then you'll be able to see who's participating and welcome them. Other help with categorization, finding/formatting images and references, etc. would be great as well.

Any help bringing these expert editors into the community would be much appreciated! Tim Vickers (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Count me in. UTC times would be helpful. Geometry guy 02:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just answering my own question, that would be 20:30 - 22:30 UTC. Geometry guy 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, see you there! I think they will start appearing on-line about 20-40 min into the workshop. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is great that we have new expert Wikipedians, but for the moment I don't see how to help. I have watchlisted some user pages at least... Geometry guy 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by noms

See User talk:Juhachi#Good article nominations; or stop selling yourself short for an explanation of the flood of nominations from User:Remurmur. Obviously inappropriate. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism and reliable sources

Those editors watchlisting WP:Reviewing good articles will have noticed that I have updated and bolded the segment on checking the reliability of sources and that there is no plagiarism. The good article criteria are not intended to be extremely demanding: providing reliable sources for the article content is often the hardest part, and hence also the part that reviewers need to pay particular attention to. It is also probably the hardest part of reviewing!

I mention this because of a current GAR in which less-than-stellar sources were used, partially misrepresented and significantly plagiarized. This was missed at peer review, GAN and FAC. Please make every effort you can to check that the content of the article reflects the sources used, and that quotations are quoted and attributed appropriately. Geometry guy 20:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"providing reliable sources for the article content is often the hardest part ... It is also probably the hardest part of reviewing!" rings a bell.

However there may be one even more difficult issue - what is adequate coverage? This is really difficult because it's seldom possible to assign reviewers with good prior knowledge of a topic - even there were enough, they'd probably have had some previous involvement with the article or with its supporters. --Philcha (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Limiting nominations?

I almost hesitate to bring this up....and I am pretty sure this has been talked about before, but I thought I might bring it up again considering we are nearing 300 nominations. How is everyone feeling about setting a limit to the number of articles that one person can have nominated at one time? Maybe 3 or 5? Getting articles promoted to GA status is not a race, so I don't see the point of having 10+ articles on the list at any given time or nominating 4 or 5 articles in one day. I think, ultimately, this also splits the nominator's attention, as more than one article can be reviewed at one time. With a backlog that seems to be growing exponentially, it is not fair to other nominators who have to wait for another person to get 10 articles reviewed before they can get one reviewed. This might also take some pressure off of reviewers...I know that lately I haven't been reviewing as much because the backlog is soooo daunting (which I realize is counter-productive). Maybe we could even try a trial run? Nikki♥311 01:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say it's something I've wondered about before. WP:FAC has a limit of one nomination per editor. I reckon that's a little excessive but an upper limit may be a good idea to reduce the backlog. Peanut4 (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki. Something like what PR has with the one per day and maximum of four. I'm reviewing a few but the lists really are starting to look daunting. Apterygial 01:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as well. I originally started review GANs to help with the backlog, but it continues to grow. A limit really is needed. DiverseMentality 01:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It really would help if those who put up a lot of nominations would actually review some as well. There is no real way that a quid pro quo system (so to speak) could be introduced, but I think a little more encouraging could see the current system balance out a little. Apterygial 03:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur, but only when there is a backlog. By waiving the limit when there is no backlog it will encourage people to clear the backlog. Define backlog as no articles more than a few days old that aren't already being looked at and no more than say 10 or 15 articles more than a few days old total. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the limit of one per day with a maximum of four at once. Nikki♥311 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this an issue that is suppose to be decided by Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles. Probably most people concerned are missing the whole debate here. The topic has been discussed many times there and failed. I would not set a policy for a project without discussing it with the project. I am against such a policy. However, I am even more strongly against setting a policy for a project without discussing it with them. I am probably the most or second most prolific nominator. Right now, I have five articles that are over 30 days old according to Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report. However, if I were to set a limit, I would do so in a way that does not hinder the production of quality articles. There are some nominators who nominate a lot of articles without any editorial involvement. I would limit nominations by people who just nominate a bunch of articles without editorial involvment. I do a ton of research on every nomination and might produce less good work if I can not get it validated. Limiting nominations by people who just nominate work that is already done would have a different effect on the project than limiting nominations by people who do the editorial work in the articles that they nominate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I left a message on the project's talk page to join this discussion. Nikki♥311 17:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I should just reiterate that you should not set a rule where serious researchers who contribute encyclopedic content are treated the same way as people who spend a lot of time nominating stuff that is already written. Look at the 18 items I have at WP:GAN/R. They are all things that I have greatly improved to make the project better. The majority are original creations that are almost entirely my work. This type of work should not be discouraged. Even the one per day rule is questionable. Look for example at the two items that I nominated exactly 30 days ago that just appeared on the 30 day "old nomination" backlog portion of the report. Both (Manny Harris and Antoine Thompson) are articles that are almost entirely my creation. I am not just running around dumping things in the pipeline. I am creating encyclopedic content. Would the project be better if I created only five of these eighteen articles?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I would not wish to see a hard cap (fixed number of noms at any time on that page) but wouldn't oppose on a soft cap (# of noms per editor). As Wikipedia grows, # of articles increase and that brings more more noms. To cope with increasing number of GAN, the most correct approach is to find more good reviewers, not by capping it off. However, it's a step into the right direction but the cap should only be a temporary measure and must be open to review (to change/extend/remove the cap) when deemed necessary. I strongly protest any kind of "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" reviews. We have an editor (we'll call him person A), who now have left Wikipedia, that did just this by asking another editor (person B) to review person A's selected articles in return for giving a free pass to person B's selected articles to become GA. We mustn't give incentives for this to happen again.OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

By soft cap do you mean something like if there are over 300 articles under review no one can nominate a fifth article and while there are over 250 no one can nominate a 10th, but unlimited otherwise?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What I see is that some projects nominate a lot of articles but not activate enough reviewers, other projects nominate a few articles and suffer less because the backlog is not as big in these categories. I am OK if the project XX nominates all 3000 artcles in their project at once, because most of the reviewers will not review articles they do not have the slightest clue. The backlog would go to 3300 and in 10 years all articles of the project will be reviewed.--Stone (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of my current WP:GACs are not even part of my primary project WP:CHICAGO. I don't know how to interpret this last comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Another benefit to having a limit is that there will be faster turnover. I find it frustrating that when I nominate an article I have a lot of time to deal with comments by a reviewer, but one to two months later when it is actually reviewed, I am stressed about something else and it is a struggle to respond in time. As a result of this same problem, many GA reviews go unanswered by nominators who no longer have the free time to respond and didn't expect to be busy when the review finally happened. Nikki♥311 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think setting a limit is the wrong approach - as TonyTheTiger pointed out (18:11, 12 December 2008) , the most likely effect of that would be be reduce the amount of work editors put into producing GA-level content. IMO OhanaUnited (19:04, 12 December 2008) correctly identified the main problem - not enough reviewers. So we need strategies to motivate editors to undertake GA reviews. A workable strategy would have to include both incentives and an advertising campaign. However, as OhanaUnited pointed out, potential solutions must not encourage editors to game the system. --Philcha (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The key thing here is to increase the number of reviewers without limiting the number of nominations or the quality. One thing I thought of (and this really is a rough idea) is that we have a soft cap, but you can add noms beyond that if you review an equal number (not counting quick fails). For example, say the cap was five noms, but you have written ten, then you can add your ten noms if you review the five in excess as well. I don't know how workable that idea would be, but as the aim should be to try and clear the backlog, this could be a way of working the problem. Thoughts? Apterygial 02:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of limiting nominations. It goes against the spirit of Wikipedia in my view. With the backlog at over 300/250 (an all time high) I sympathise with the desire to do something, but limiting nominations would have little impact. Ideas should be based on the evidence, in this case WP:GAN/R. Even a hard cap of 5 articles per nominator would only reduce the number of articles at WP:GAN by 25 (less than 10 per cent) and the 5 editors affected are all valuable content contributors. The top two also review. Geometry guy 13:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Sorry, I don't have much sympathy with the "me-isms" expressed above:

"- me (User A) has written this superb article on wigets and I want it GA-ed now. Its not fair, its been in the GAR for a month - its all userB and userC's fault they submitted 10 articles each. They should be stopped. In a months time I will have lost interest in the article."

I reviewed some 30 GANs since September, because I like doing and I feel it makes a good contribution to wikipedia. If editors wish to get their articles GARed fast, then it is quite simple:

1. write articles in topic areas where there is a good supply of volunteer reviewers,
2. write them so that reviewers want to review them.
3. don't try to force volunteer reviewers to have the same priority as you in doing your article first.

I have done a few GARs where the article has been put on hold and the holds have never been addressed by the nominator. This is a waste of the GA Reviewer's time and it may well be remembered. Quite frankly why nominate a article for GAR if you have no long term, i.e. next month or the month after, interest in the article? I would also suggest that an editor who submits five or ten articles for GAR in one day may appear to have little interest in individual articles only the group as a whole - but I could be wrong. But if they submit more, then the volunteer reviewers get more choice.Pyrotec (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Or one could review all the articles on GA and then the rest of the GA reviewers will have no choice, but to review the article the person nominated. Jolly Ω Janner 21:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Let's assume that it is realistic, then a possible (unrealistic) estimate of one editor doing one GAR per day on 299 articles, leaving only one GAR left undone, would take about a year minimum. If those editors submitting 10 articles for GAN had to do about 3,000 article reviews - say ten years worth of effort. It would certainly cut down on the number of multiple GAN submissions.Pyrotec (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A broken process?

GAN used to be a prerequisite of any article that wished to obtain Featured status. The process was smooth, relatively quick and, most importantly, reliable. One could be certain that their article would receive feedback from an unbiased editor who contributes valuable information pertinent to the article's improvement. This is, however, no longer the case. The GA nomination process has become, simply put, an infestation of dozens of articles that can rot like garbage for anywhere upwards of a month. People are employing a "scratch my back I'll scratch your back" where one editor basically passes another editor's article in a mutual swap. Had you told me this one year ago I would have found it unfathomable, but the times have changed and we need some sort of action; I hope there are other people out there that feel strongly about this as I do. The GA nomination process is integral to Wikipedia. I propose we do something in order to stimulate editors to review more articles, thus drastically reducing the overwhelming number of articles marinating in the nomination line. First, we need to implement a contest similar to that of the extremely successful GAC Backlog Elimination Drive. Second, there needs to be some sort of regulation and reformation of the process as a whole. A discussion is currently going on regarding limiting an editor's number of nominations; this is viable, because it is quite common for one contributor to have upwards of five articles listed here. Indeed it is not a race. What we see now is a flood of articles (48 alone listed under "Sports"). It is intimidating. If we execute a new Backlog Elimination Drive that turns out to be successful, and consequently reduces the 48 articles to 10 then the psychological effects will be absolutely mind-blowing. These are some ideas I am putting out on the table; discussion is needed and encouraged. NSR77 ^T 21:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we just do an elimination drive a month or two ago? It helped decrease the backlog to 116 unreviewed articles on November 1, 2008; we're back up at 229 unrevieweds, though, so it bounces back pretty quickly. We need a longer term solution. Gary King (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the original intent of GA was to recognize articles that can't reach FA. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the way it was. So technically, the process has actually grown quite a lot and moved in a positive direction since then. Gary King (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Still, there seems to be a lot of articles that just lay around. A couple in the Sports section have been there since mid-October. NSR77 ^T 15:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes (wistful sigh), I remember the halycon days of a year ago, when there were only 200 articles at GAN and the GA process was famous for its integrity. Geometry guy 18:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. I'm afraid all the evidence is that Backlog Elimination Drives provide only temporary relief. Both drives on record were followed by an almost immediate bounce-back to even longer backlogs.

The sports backlog is partly due to the large number of Pro Wrestling GANs – eight of the first ten are PW articles. The downside to having such a productive group of editors in a certain field is that it's easy for editors to burnout on reviewing those types of articles. Wikipedia is entering a period of maturity. We have 5601 GAs now — that's an extra 1300 in the last six months and almost 2400 more since this time last year. More needs to be done to encourage and teach new GA reviewers. The Peer Review and FA processes have the same problem. The three oversight processes (PR/FA/GA) provide an absolutely crucial evaluation of the content of Wikipedia in terms of article and writing quality and reliability issues. Not to mention the countless formatting fixes that happen during the review process that promote a common image across the board. It's been stated before but a general reviewer training program (with a link on the main page even) could help to relieve the backlog/reviewer time problems. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi all! I'm back again! ;-) Anyway, looking at the current backlog, I just reviewed two of the oldest articles, nominated in October, so most of the older articles go back to November now. We still have Mayer–Vietoris sequence, nominated on 10/31/2008 -- I took a peek at it, but it's pretty complicated, and I think it would be best if someone with a better background in mathematics reviewed it, so I messaged two folks from the WP:WGA list that might make better reviewers. If anyone else wants to take a crack at it, please do.

I'm personally not concerned too much with the size of the backlog, since it is an indication that the GA process is receiving attention in the wikipedia community. What I am more concerned with is the length of time it takes for articles to receive reviews. IMHO, it should be unacceptable for an article to be listed with no active reviews for over one month, and ideally, articles should receive their first review within two weeks. I don't think that's an unrealistic goal to shoot for. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty interesting to note that, of the 320 nominations on WP:GAN, including those that are On Hold, all of the nominators with three or more nominations (26 of them) make up 132 of the nominations on the page, or roughly 40%. Gary King (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that articles about sporting events, obscure actors, and individual submarines sit unreviewed for a long time doesn't really horrify me. What would be bad is if articles about important things sat unreviewed, and that doesn't seem to happen so much. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that reviewing is such a grind - especially checking all the sources to make sure that they are acceptable as WP:RS for the topic and that each significant point is supported by at least 1 WP:RS. It's almost as much work as editing an article up to GA standard, but the editor has the advantage of picking a subject he / she is interested in. I've been trying to do 1 GA review per article that I submit for GA review, and and where possible in the same (sub-)section of the GAN list. Now I'm close to burn-out with reviewing - OTOH there are several articles I'm eager to bring up to GA standard. Any ideas on how to make reviewing less arduous? --Philcha (talk) 10:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I've been trying to offset my noms with more reviews as well. Reviewing is a lot of work. Even the easy ones take me a few hours. Just summarizing the general consensus on this page at the moment about the GA process: no real want to go towards limiting nominations, as that would hurt the process and damage the whole point of the system: to produce GAs. So then we get on to trying to find more reviewers, and trying to get those reviewers to do more reviews. But we don't want to lose the quality that comes from taking a lot of time on a review. I, for one, believe part of the solution needs to come from making it clearer to nominators what the GA process is, and what is expected of them. GAN isn't about "well, I've expanded this article a little and it looks pretty cool and the topic is interesting, what do I have to lose in a GA nom?" (as I, admittedly, first thought). We need to make it clearer that GA has (or at least, should have) quite high standards. I bet most reviewers look at the article before they sign up to review it, and if they see a one-line lead, typos and no references, it could sit at GAN for ages. On the other hand, reviewing articles from someone like TonyTheTiger is much better, because he knows what is expected. So we need to make Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles more prominent, and expand it so it makes clear that GA should not be an experiment or a push-over. Improvement in articles pre-nom would lead to more reviewers as the review itself would not be, as Philcha says, "a grind". Any ideas how we could achieve this? Apterygial 11:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In summary, I'm not convinced that the GA review process as a whole is broken, it is merely that a few of the topics/subtopics have got bunged up. They are not topics that particularly interest me. The point above about "educating" nominators, where necessary, what a GA-class article should aspire to is a valid point and is worth pursuing.Pyrotec (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Watson's Hotel review

I used to do a few GA reviews now and then, but haven't done one in a while. After seeing the backlog of articles that need to be reviewed, I decided to jump back in and review Watson's Hotel. I did try and brush up on any revised criteria, etc. since I was last here, but if someone has a minute, could they take a quick look at the article and my review comments to make sure that I'm not being too lenient? Thanks and much appreciated, Green451 (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Apterygial 03:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone please review Edwin Thumboo!

The GA nomination for Edwin Thumboo was accidentally marked as "on hold" when Taxman passed another article. Taxman removed the "on hold" tag after I alerted him of this, making Edwin Thumboo the oldest unreviewed GA nomination. Could someone please review it promptly? The backlog is terrible. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Aspie Me's noms

We had a small discussion here. Could someone else take a look. It's a little weird. Look at WP:GAN's history for more info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I did have a look at Aspie Me's contributions a few hours ago, and as ever these drive-by noms concern me. For example, AM nominated Adolf Anderssen and Wilhelm Steinitz for GA back in November, but did not contribute to any of the reviews, and hasn't edited either article. It is fine to say that you read more than you write, but putting up articles at GAN and not following up appears a little improper. I would like to see a commitment to carry through with further noms before AM adds more. Apterygial 05:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked them to join this discussion. Without good reasoning, I think we should just remove their noms. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too hasty to simply remove the nominations, the two left at war and military actually look pretty good and I was thinking of notifying the primary contributors and going ahead with a review on them. I suggest warning Aspie Me against this and removing the articles on a case by case basis.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As of today, User:Aspie me is down to do a couple of GA reviews. So I think we have to assume WP:Good faith on the nominations.Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a week and no new contribs from this user.. Wizardman 05:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I say remove them. Probably should leave them a note on their userpage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with GAN and Wikisource

I'm stumped. The issue of the moment at WP:Layout#Proposal is whether links to Wikisource should be inline, or confined to just the External links section, or external links for details plus no more than one template notice at the first relevant place in the article (see example). I think the bottom line is that there's no chance that we're going to get a consensus that covers all of Wikipedia, so we have to decide what we want to see at FAC, what we want to see at GAN (and WP:1.0, I think), and what we don't want to see anywhere on Wikipedia. The best places to find relevant arguments at the moment are s:WS:Scriptorium#WP guidelines on links from WP to Wikisource (discussion mainly by Wikisourcians) and WT:Layout#Proposal (discussion by Wikipedians). What do you guys want to see in articles trying to pass GAN? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Controversial_articles#Words to avoid

The issue is how the usefulness of WP:Words to avoid and its talk page tends to wax and wane over the years as the "terrorism" and related arguments take over, and why that might be a bad thing, and a suggested solution of moving discussion over this and similar hot-button issues to the guideline WP:Controversial_articles. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ReverendLogos & Christmas in the American Civil War

User:ReverendLogos is currently reviewing my article Christmas in the American Civil War for GA. However, he has done quite a few things to "improve" the article which would be things previous GA reviewers I've dealt with would see as problems; images underneath headings and breaking up paragraphs into very small paragraphs being the mos obvious. AGF and all, could someone mak a quick glance and make sure everything is cool? Thanks.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Touch the Clouds

Someone pass Touch the Clouds a well written and well sourced B-class article. Great Gall (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a GA review in progress, so it is the responsibility of the editor who opened the review (User:Smallbones) to decide when and how to close it. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Smallbones has to pass it as it is now. Would you not agree? Great Gall (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss the nomination process as a whole, not to advertise your own articles. Please keep this in mind. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That is for Smallbones to decide, not me. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already contacted him, to no avail, I bet he is still recovering from the holidays as are most of us! ;) Perhaps you could give me your personaly opinion on this matter. Again: does the article now pass on all criteria? Are there any major errors in the TtC article and if so, which ones then? Great Gall (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing of nomination page

IMO, {{polltop}} and {{pollbottom}} should be used to close the nominations so it can be made clear when the article was promoted and by who and to prevent vandal attacks, opinions?--Truco 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

{{discussion top}} at the very least, not {{poll top}}. It's an interesting suggestion, although one can also just look at the discussion to see what the status is; near the end the good article reviewer should typically mention that the article finally meets the criteria and that they intend to promote it. Gary King (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

At community GAR there is a placeholder at the top of the discussion for the result. Such a placeholder could be added to GANs (and individual GARs) if reviewers want it. That would be less work for reviewers than adding archiving templates to the top and bottom of the review subpage. Geometry guy 19:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, which I'll try out. Occasionally I've seen a discussion start up on the review page after I've closed a GA Sweeps Review, which I only notice if I've forgotten to remove that page from my watch list. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If reviewers are positive about doing something like this, a placeholder for the result can easily be added to Template:GAN/subst. Geometry guy 22:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

GA and peer review

I noticed that Glengoyne Distillery is requesting both a peer review and a good article review. Is it normal to ask for two things at once? Is it common for articles to be peer reviewed before or after a good article nomination, or vice versa? Martin 18:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review can be used either before or after a GA nomination (or both), and simultaneous requests are fine, although not common. Peer review is formative, GAN is summative. Geometry guy 18:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on how to disengage

I now realize that I am unwelcome at GAN and will be doing no more reviews. I have two in progress and do not know how to remove myself from the GA1 without failing them. I know there is a way and I am asking someone to do it for me. The two articles are:

1. From Bakunin to Lacan
2. Millennium '73

I think I have take care of everything else. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoah! Don't quit! We need prolific reviewers like you now as much as ever! Don't let negative and tactless comments from those who should know better stop you from doing all that good work at GAN. Apterygial 04:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Everyone is welcome...just ignore those who make it seem like otherwise. I'd really hate to lose such a great reviewer. :( Nikki♥311 04:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also really appreciated your detailed reviews. I actually think I have become a better writer from seeing the prose fixes you've made to articles that I have written. You are most definitely welcome at GAN, and I hope you choose to stay. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome at GAN, Mattisse, as these responses amply demonstrate. Geometry guy 10:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't leave. Your reviews are great. —TheLeftorium 10:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You've reviewed 2 articles I submitted and I enjoyed our discussions. You're one of 3 people who showed me what a GA review should look like from the point of view of an article's supporter(s). --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fenrir

Could someone take over on this one? I've really left it hanging as I've been busy. Wrad (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take it. Dana boomer (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Quid pro quo and backlog

I think the obvious way to get more reviews is to reward the reviewer. We should set something up that doesn't degrade quality, while rewarding effort. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know; doing article work in general on Wikipedia is more about doing it because you want to, not doing it because you want to get a reward. For instance, getting an article to GA doesn't get you any reward beyond bragging rights, which can be the same for doing good article reviews if you feel like it. Gary King (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Gary King. I review many GAs (and FACs) because I want to review those articles. I do not submit articles for awards myself because I don't want to. Isn't this the way Wikipedia is supported to work? (Besides, some reviews are already very superficial and articles get passed that should not be. Would not rewarding quantity without quality just encourage this?) —Mattisse (Talk) 15:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Another form of quid pro quo which would resolve the problem is that each nominator should attempt to review another unrelated article. We would then automatically have as many reviews as nominations. I did this myself recently - I made my first nomination and then looked for an article to review. Which reminds me, I must get on with the review.... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

When this was discussed before, the consensus usually ended up being that some excellent article writers aren't great article reviewers. Gary King (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed and rediscussed many times over, if you look through the archives of this page. There are good points on both sides, but so far it appears to have been decided that giving awards will only promote superficial reviews by people looking for awards. Instead of rehashing this discussion for the hundreth time, may I suggest everyone uses the time to instead conduct a few reviews that reduce the backlog? I apologize if this comes off as rude, but it occasionally annoys me to see this same topic pop up on the discussion board every few weeks and have the same discussion with the same points made by the same people be repeated each time. Dana boomer (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I'm fairly new here myself. Regarding the original point, is there some form of record of reviews that one can use in the manner of a campaign ribbon. For example, a userbox which said that one had conducted 88 GA reviews would be an indication of one's standing and, with a suitable category attached, might be useful for locating editors with this experience. Little tokens of this sort are quite good motivators - that why real-world medals exist - and I've heard a real-world VIP tell me of his pleasure in achieving such minor awards in other online forums. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's like patting yourself on the back, which I think is perfectly acceptable. Here's the user box you might be looking for: {{User Good Articles reviewed}} Gary King (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the userbox, I didn't know about it. I like to keep track of all reviews I do because I can see the effect I have as a reviewer and also to keep track of what I have reviewed so far; it serves as a handy tool when my watchlist is overflowing. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A previous incentive was "GAN reviewer of the month", but it requires someone with the dedication to trawl through WP:GAN to decide who deserves the award each month (check the archives). However, if the number of articles on review or on hold is anything to go by, GAN currently enjoys record numbers of reviewers, and the numbers are steadily increasing. Geometry guy 20:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about something that would let people see when a user who has an article up for review, has since reviewed another article. If a user did some good reviewing, and this was obvious to other reviewers, those other reviewers might be encouraged to give the user's nominated article priority. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(redent) Here's kind of how I wish it would work. Somewhere we would have a list with entries like this:

• User:Peregrine Fisher - nominated Cannabis in Oregon - has since reviewed Treehouse of Horror XIX, Homer and Lisa Exchange Cross Words, Homie the Clown, Radioactive Man (The Simpsons episode)

Someone interested in reducing the backlog might see that reviewing my article is a good way to encourage me to do reviews and reduce the backlog. We could have a rule that states no trading of reviews. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not fond of that idea for a number of reasons, not least because it's based on what I see as a false premiss. Reducing the backlog is not in the interest of any particular nominator; {s)he simply wants to see his/her own nomination attended to, not bothered about the rest. Besides, is the backlog really a problem? I wonder what the consensus would be on how long it's acceptable to wait for a GA review, and how that compares with the present reality? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Malleus. I also see another false premise here. Reviewers are surely primarily motivated by their interest in the nominated article, not by the extent to which they think the nominator is a solid contributor to GAN. Geometry guy 20:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with much of what Malleus says. As for a consensus on how long a wait is reasonable, I have two current nominations. One is 46 days old, and the other is 44 days old. I believe that is too long. I have reviewed 112 articles. Almost all of the articles I nominate end up in the list of the five oldest nominations. I'm torn, though. Some sort of quid pro quo system would be nice, as I have a problem with someone nominating 100 articles and reviewing 3. However, I acknowledge that many people don't like reviewing wrestling articles (although branching out is nice, as I avoided many types of articles until the last GAN backlog reduction drive, at which point I realized that they aren't so bad). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree that waiting for 40-odd days is too long, but I wonder whether that's more to do with the subject of the article, rather than the backlog? As Geometry guy says above I'm sure that many reviewers are motivated to look at article which grab their attention in some way. I've been caught out a couple of times by having a GA reviewer turn up sooner that I was truly ready for, but grateful for the attention nevertheless. Instead of looking at the absolute size of the backlog, I wonder whether we ought not instead to be considering what a reasonable wait might be? Two weeks, for instance? And then consider what steps might encourage reviewers to look at articles once they've been in the queue longer than that? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just curious. Am I the only reviewer who reviews because I like doing so, and not because I am submitting articles to be reviewed or looking for rewards? (I have reviewed wrestling articles, GaryColemanFan, including at least one of yours.) —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, you're not. I've also helped out with wrestling articles, although not at GAN so far as I can recall, and I'm certainly not in the market for any flashy baubles. But it would certainly be true to say that there are some areas of the GA nomination list that I usually don't even bother to look at, and probably wouldn't review even if the backlog extended to years rather than days. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• All this talk is having the strange effect of leaving me feeling like I am a fool for reviewing articles just to help out. There is so much emphasis on "rewards", it is getting exhausting! I am tired of this constant emphasis. Perhaps I need to move on. Perhaps because I am not out getting awards, this is beginning to seem like something I should not be doing any more. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no emphasis on rewards, constant or otherwise. I can't recall ever getting any rewards for the over 200 articles I've reviewed, and neither have I expected one. In fact, I'm sure that if you look back you'll see that I've been one of those consistently against any kind of reward scheme. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh. I thought that much of this talk page was about how to give people rewards, userboxes, etc. I must have misread it. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have. Most of this talk page is about resolving issues with individual nominations and improving the nominations process. Geometry guy 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize if my comments were frustrating to reviewers. I appreciate what you do, and I'm certainly not looking to be rewarded for reviewing articles. In my response, I was simply trying to answer the question above, which was about how long is too long to wait. I believe that 40+ days is quite a long time, as people move on to other articles and aren't necessarily as interested in something they wrote a month and a half earlier. My comment was simply to clarify that I review articles (including at times when I have no nomination up), as I believe that every nominator should. I'm not looking for a reward, per se, but I have little patience for people who put up a ton of nominations and don't feel the need to review articles in return. I don't believe for a second that any nominator should be able to say, "Sorry, I'm not a good reviewer." If the editor doesn't have a thorough understanding of the GA criteria and a solid grasp of the English language, he or she shouldn't be nominating articles in the first place. Again, though, I'm sorry if my comments have upset those who do such a great job with GA reviews. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

← Your comments certainly haven't upset me, and I think that you make a very fair point about the length of time that some articles have to wait. Shows that it's not the backlog per se we need to be concerned about, but the average waiting time, as per queuing theory. Where are all the mathematicians when you need them? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehe! Yes, the waiting time is the main issue, and ideas to tackle it are valuable. It may be worth reminding reviewers of the nominations report, which lists the oldest nominations in several ways, and also User:VeblenBot/C/Good article nominees awaiting review which lists, by date, all nominations awaiting review. However, I do believe that most reviewers, like Mattisse, review because they enjoy it and like to help out. Consequently, as I said above, they will tend to pick nominations which interest them. I would encourage them to pick the oldest nominations which interest them! Geometry guy 22:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy may be right that "most reviewers ... review because they enjoy it". However relying mainly on those who enjoy reviewing has left Wikipedia with a recurring GA backlog problem. Something is needed to motivate those who do not enjoy reviewing (which includes me). I've previously suggested a "one review per nomination" rule, with a starting credit of 3-5 articles because I would not want to see GA reviews done by people who have not been on the receiving end of a couple of reviews. However I've also admitted that this proposal requires an accounting system, which would need some thought. --Philcha (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think putting in place a prescriptive system that requires nominators to review an article (disregarding any bureaucratic overhead) will actively discourage nominations. Some editors already stay away from GA and FA because, in their cost/benefit analysis of the process, they see the payoff as not being worth the work of achieving it, and I think it would be a shame if we did anything to reinforce that. I don't see a problem with handling the more egregious cases of multiple noms on an ad hoc basis, as we currently do, but forcing someone to review is asking for either a poor-quality, disinterested review or them to abandon the project altogether. Of course, reducing the number of nominations would be one way to reduce the backlog... ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We do not currently handle the more egregious cases of multiple noms on an ad hoc, or any other, basis. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, they are discussed here on a regular basis, and multiple drive-by noms have been removed from the list in the past (please forgive my laziness in not hunting up the diffs, though of course I will if you insist). EyeSerene^talk 18:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene sums up better than I could the fundamental reason why any quid pro quo scheme ought to be completely unacceptable. The whole point of the GA project is to improve the quality of articles across the encyclopedia, in as efficient and effective a way as possible. That precludes any rules about who can nominate an article, or how many one editor can nominate. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I've done 36 GA reviews at the current count, but I've never submitted an article, so under a rule proposed above I'm debarred from doing reviews (and possibly a few others may be as well) Is this really sensible; will it help reduce the article count; and should I (we) delist the articles that I (we) passed? Pyrotec (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Model GA reviews

I've been struck by the evidence that high quality reviews by one reviewer can influence, inspire and encourage others. This makes me think it would be a good idea to create a list of examples of some of the best GAN (or individual GAR) reviews in order to provide models and inspiration for future reviewers. Would reviewers like to nominate a few examples below? Geometry guy 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume that you'll select a few later.

• Talk:Kimberella/GA1
• Talk:Arthropod/GA1
• Talk:Paleontology/GA1
• Talk:Adolf Anderssen/GA1
• Talk:Wilhelm Steinitz/GA1 --Philcha (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Talk:Powder Alarm/GA1? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Surely there must be more. Nominators, reviewers, editors, what reviews have you seen which provided great direction or inspired you to continue to improve the encyclopedia? Self nomination is allowed too. Geometry guy 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's one that I recently did: Talk:Guitar Hero World Tour/GA1 Gary King (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can nom reviews we did, Talk:Northern_Bald_Ibis/GA1 was passed in 3 days, thanks to a very responsive editor. --Philcha (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As the main editor of Northern Bald Ibis, I'd also say that a thorough review such as the one by Philcha is very helpful not only in maintaining the status of GA, but in ensuring quality before going to FAC. jimfbleak (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism, not review

I just came across this GAN review for Seth Material, and the review isn't much of a review; more of what the reviewer thinks the article is and no suggestions to help get the article along for improvements. I'm not too sure how to approach this, as it seems unfair for those who worked on the article to just receive criticism that doesn't help improve the article and a lack of a proper review. The article has not been failed, nor was it appropriately tagged as being reviewed or on hold. Thoughts? DiverseMentality 06:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's much we can do about a poor review. They're going to happen. The article would be a quick fail because of all the fact tags anyways. I agree that the reviewers tone was totally innapropriate. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The "fact" tags are enough to prevent it from being ready for GA, but the review at least needs to be closed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

PeregrineFisher, thank you for notifying me of this vicious slagging of my comments, especially DiverseMentality's counterfactual claim that I offered no suggestions for improvement. Those who were around for the big redirect discussions on Seth Material will recall that I opposed strenuously efforts to turn the article into a redirect, asking for more time to be given so that it could improve. At the time I also explained at length what I meant by the criticism that the article is written too much from an "in-universe" view, a criticism that I uphold because ít is just as valid now as it was then.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

After a very quick look, I don't think it's fair to describe the GA review for Seth Material as "a poor review". The reviewer drew attention to the "fact" tags and linked to the GA criteria. Like that reviewer, I'm not keen on quickfail as it does little to improve either articles or editors. Following that there was a lot of editing of the article up to 8 Jan, although little activity since. If I were reviewing the article I'd post a note asking when it it would be ready for the review to proceed, and maybe set a deadline. The article should have been flagged "being reviewed" at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Philosophy. OTOH I have reservations about "on hold" as that may tempt others to apply their ideas about deadlines over-rigidly. -Philcha (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same review? I see no mention of the {{fact}} tags, nor any indication that the article was reviewed with the GA-criteria in mind; there's certainly not a link to WP:WIAGA. I would call it an unproductive review by someone unaccustomed to the process. Constructive criticism should be given if it is necessary during a review, but this one unfortunately gives very little to go on. Perhaps you're referring to Skomorokh's comments on the talk page, which pre-date the actual GA-review done by Goodmorningworld? That indeed seems a little better informed. María (habla conmigo) 17:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"GA criteria"? What criteria? Here's a hint: if you want reviewers to follow a specific set of criteria, post them on the page where editors are invited to comment. There was nothing at Talk:Seth Material or at Talk:Seth Material/GA1. See WP:RfA for an example of providing guidance to editors.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? When you click in the GAN box on the talk page, where it says "follow this link" to review page? It also says in that box that editors "...may review it according to the good article criteria..." (with a link to the criteria). Then, when you click on the "follow this link" and are taken to the subpage, it says "All good articles must meet the Good article criteria. If you're new to reviewing, please read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles for advice." (again, with a link to the criteria). This would feel to me to be enough links to the criteria for anyone. Would big red boxes with flashing lights make it easier for you? Dana boomer (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Either we're not talking about the same thing or we are having a serious problem communicating. On the Talk page of Seth Material, there is a section with this heading:

GA Review

Below that there is this:

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seth Material/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review

I click on the edit link, it takes me here: Talk:Seth Material/GA1 where I enter my comments. At no step along the way were there any guidelines, instructions or criteria. I'm done here. You all need to think about how you interact with editors trying to provide good faith input based on what they have in front of their eyes.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what happened here. The nominator (NoVomit) added the GAN tag to the article's talk page. NoVomit then clicked on the link to create the review page and saved the new page. NoVomit then transcluded the review page onto the article's talk page. From someone coming into it with no background in reviewing, the talk page had an empty section at the bottom for a Good Article review. It was awaiting comments, and comments were provided by Goodmorningworld (who apparently had not seen the GAN tag at the top of the article's talk page, which contains the link to the GA criteria). This is, apparently, a misunderstanding caused by a lack of knowledge of the GA review process on both editor's parts. If a review page wasn't created and transcluded prematurely, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see; that makes much more sense. Thanks for the detective work :) Is there anything we can do to make this not happen in the future? Perhaps some sort of box above the edit window for the review page (after the initial creation of the page) with a link to the GA criteria? At the moment, as we've discovered, there's nothing there. Dana boomer (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see how that would be the case; I've seen new nominators doing the exact same thing, thinking that they were only helping the process along. It has caused me confusion in the past, in fact, when it looked like the nominators were attempting to review their own article. This review is still open, however, when it should probably be reviewed by another editor (since Goodmorningworld has apparently abdicated), and/or failed for now. María (habla conmigo) 19:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I had to read this 3 times to reassure myself that I wan't hallucinating previously. What I saw under "GA review" at the time (17:21, 14 January 2009) turns out to be the last set of comments before Goodmorningworld's review. That set of comments was useful.

Goodmorningworld, do not take this personally, but your comments did nothing to help improve the article or its editors. I strongly suspect you have never been on the "receiving end" of a GA review.

IMO being on the "receiving end" of a few GA reviews is the most important training a reviewer can have. I suggest WP:GAN's section "how to review" should emphasise that those who have not had this experience should not try to review.

I also suggest we should change the "beginning of review" temple to include links to the criteria. --Philcha (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with that ... I might even go so far as to suggest that all GA reviewers ought to have at least one GA under their belt. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's 2 votes. If we get a 3rd, we should WP:BRD. --Philcha (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

← Call me number three. DiverseMentality 19:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused: three votes for what? Linking the criteria at the beginning of the review, discouraging reviewers with no experience, or requiring all GAN reviewers to have a GA under their belt?

I'm happy with the first, dubious about the second, and oppose the third, nice though it sounds at first.

Care is needed when making changes based on a single incident. Introducing measures that reduce the pool of potential reviewers is hardly what GAN needs at the minute. Also, since anyone can nominate an article, what does it mean to have "one GA under one's belt"? I would imagine quite a few of GAN's regular reviewers started out with some unhelpful or dodgy reviews, but they got better. I see two alternative longer-term responses to this thread from Goodmorningworld. They are, very approximately:

1. "These guys have publicly challenged my integrity and don't know what they are talking about. I'm never doing another GAN review."
2. "Okay, maybe on reflection I could have said more in my review. I will learn a bit more about GAN reviewing and try to give better reviews in the future."

In the first case, okay, we've had one weak review. In the second case, we may well have gained a valuable new reviewer. In other contexts I have had a positive impression of Goodmorningworld. He or she being pissed off by this thread is entirely within the realm of normal Wikipedia experience. Geometry guy 20:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Biology and medicine

Wondering if we can divide these into two as I think they are sufficiently different. Will do this if no one objects.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this proposal be at WP:GA not WP:GAN? I thought the categories here followed those at GA. Peanut4 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The categories here follow the first two levels at WP:GA, which are in turn substantially coordinated with Wikipedia 1.0. I don't think the case is strong enough to split them. The list of Biology and Medicine nominations is a reasonable length. Also the subjects overlap: for instance current GAs include Poliovirus, Canine parvovirus, Opium, Prion, Earwax and Colony Collapse Disorder. Differentiating biologists and medical scientists may be difficult as well, especially in an historical context. No classification system is perfect, and the one we have adopted has worse combinations than this ("Social sciences and society" would be one example). Geometry guy 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FA and WP:GA actually has the two separated into Health and medicine vs Biology. I think most of us can easily tell what belongs to biology (animals, planets, etc) and what belongs to medicine (disease, infectious agents, drugs). These are also two different wiki projects. I am not sure which two levels you are referring to? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles at WP:GA are presented in a hierarchy with three levels. The top two levels of the hierarchy are what we use at GAN. The distinction between Health and medicine vs biology is at level 3. Further GA does not distinguish between biological and medical scientists, even at level 3. FA has its own scheme which is unconnected with GA or Wikipedia 1.0.

Plainly not everyone can distinguish between medicine and biology, as both Tooth and Earwax are listed under health and medicine. Geometry guy 10:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review reform

Some of you may remember that, back in the summer, the GA reform working party looked at the way GA reviews are carried out. We regularly hear concerns about issues such as inconsistent review quality, reviewer experience, the transparency of the process and so on, and our aim was to come up with a new process that—while keeping our strengths—reduces or eliminates the weaknesses. A draft proposal was posted for community review; the resulting debate can be found in the archives here.

Taking account of the feedback we received, we've re-drafted the original proposal and would like to place it before the GA community for approval. The process set out below is intended as a replacement for the current review process—in brief, we believe it has the advantages of retaining our collaborative, unbureaucratic approach to reviewing, while providing for increased input from reviewers, encouraging new reviewers to participate, and ensuring every article nominated gets a fair treatment.

Open review proposal

• The GA review process is started by the first reviewer to leave comments on an article's GA sub-page. By doing so, they become the lead reviewer for that article.

• With the review now open, other GA reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to participate and leave additional comments on the review sub-page.

• The review should remain open for at least 3 days; this can be extended according to the lead reviewer's judgement.

• The lead reviewer is responsible for closing the review—either when a reasonable time period has elapsed, or when they believe all the review comments have been satisfactorily addressed. They will then promote or fail the article.

Please indicate your opinion below; additional comments or questions are welcome! Per standard practice, consensus will be determined by weight of argument.

Support

1. Strong support. I think, given its increasing size and importance across Wikipedia and the dedication of our reviewers, we need to stop providing GA's detractors with ammunition to knock our credibility as a quality review process. EyeSerene^talk 11:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong support - The more people looking at the articles, the better. This still keeps one person in charge of the review, but it can potentially boost quality. We may not see an immediate change in the way reviews are done, but even if this opens a new door and reviewers begin to peek in, it's an improvement. Baby steps. Also, I still am not inclined to resume reviewing articles in full, but I would enjoy joining open reviews and dropping a few comments. لennavecia 14:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. I can't improve on what Eyeserene and Jennavecia said. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. Can't see it doing any harm, and it may do some good in encouraging reviewers who may not want the responsibility of deciding the outcome of a review to nevertheless take part in it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. This isn't actually a big change. In many ways it is no change. Editors can comment on review pages now, and they may influence the reviewer. Primarily, this proposal is a shift in attitude to encourage lead reviewers to seek and receive input before making their decision if they want to. They are perfectly at liberty not to seek such input, or to ignore it. The lead reviewer decides. Power and responsibility hand-in-hand.

   The fundamental principle of GA is "one reviewer decides". I have and will defend that principle at every opportunity, because it is a key reason why GA benefits the encyclopedia: GA growth is linear, FA growth is static. GA should never become FA-lite, otherwise it is pointless, but it should evolve towards better practice, where each decision is informed by as much information as possible, Geometry guy 23:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

6. Support. This is simple refinement of the current ethos of GA. It allows the reviewer-editor relationship while encouraging further imput, a forum for new reviewers or those who haven't time to complete a full review, but can help out by checking sources or images or other opinion. It also eliminates the "driveby" or "you-scratch-my-back" reviews. Gwinva (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. You got me. I'm supporting because, as Gwinva says, "This is simple refinement". It really isn't all that different, of the proposals listed above, only the third is a departure from the current system. While I think it is great that we are encouraging new editors to participate in GA reviews by just chipping in with comments, I can't seriously see that happening. But then, how is that any different to now? So, I'm supporting because it's certainly worth a shot. But, if it doesn't, then we should repeal it. Meet back in mid-May. Apterygial 10:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. I can't improve on what Eyeserene Jennavecia and Dan said. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I am genuinely mystified how some of my colleagues, whose good sense and perceptions I respect and admire, are drawn to the conclusion that this proposal 'adds' a layer of bureaucracy or renders the nomination process more complex. Viewing this proposal from a policy and procedure perspective, there seems to be fewer objects to write about, for notions such as 'second opinion' and placing articles 'on hold' have been integrated into the ideas that all articles have a minimum open period (subsuming the heretofore distinct idea of putting an article on hold) and that reviewers can contribute to other reviewers efforts, subsuming the idea of second opinions. I also fail to see how this proposal exacerbates the problem of too few reviewers. On the contrary, it seems to me, the editor who does not have the time to conduct a review now has a way to contribute in a less time intensive way, so his or her input is garnered for the project. Some colleagues opine that Good Article reviews may very well turn into FAC jr. Writing on my own account, if I was a lead reviewer and found my review collecting collections of unsubstantiated 'support per nom' or 'oppose per foobar' I would disregard it as background noise. I suppose if I got ambitious enough, I would drop notes on peoples' talk pages suggesting that a contribution to a review I've taken a lead on should entail at least one analytical sentence on how a nomination is at variance with at least one Good Article criterion. Insofar as a review becoming 'bogged down' over disagreements, the solution and appeal routes are both plain. The lead reviewer decides. Members of the loyal opposition may appeal the decision at the Good Article Review. I appreciate the comments that manifestly obvious good articles wind up swimming in the tank for a bit. I do not regard that as big a problem as the one on the opposite side of the coin, flimsy articles passed in a New York minute; quick passing, as well as quick failing damages the integrity of the Good Article marque more often than not and undermines those who contribute genuinely thoughtful reviews. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Support, this seems a very sensible method. It is definitely advisable to have a lead reviewer, but on the other hand, other opinions are often very helpful. Martin 18:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per the reasons stated by myself and others in the Neutral section. Sorry, but while this sounds like a reasonable proposal, the last thing we need is more instruction creep. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, if this goes forward, I see it as an opportunity to reduce instruction creep. The open review process gives the lead reviewer flexibility. Who says holds should last 7 days? Most holds don't. Why do we need to regulate how long holds last, or formalize requests for a second opinion? This proposal allows reviewers to manage their reviews as they think best. Geometry guy 20:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   (comment). Is Geometry guy opposing, the statement above looks like a yes not a no?Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   No, I am responding to an oppose. I prefer to add my own view after I have read the concerns of other editors. I believe this to be good practice per WP:CONSENSUS. Geometry guy 20:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks.Pyrotec (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose This is too much bureaucracy for the GA level; I see the point, and I think the motives are valid (I don't like it when new users review GAs), but this isn't the solution. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose The system is broken, but this is not the right way to fix it. ayematthew ✡ 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
4. I really like the idea in theory. But in practice, I see way too many problems. First off, we simply do not have the quantity of reviewers to pull this off, and if you take a look, those that are tagged as second opinion always hang around for months. Second, if we have disagreements between reviewers then it just slows down everything, making it unfair for the article writer. Third, it would turn us into FAC jr. in a sense, which we do not need to do. Wizardman 21:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose The benefits do not outweigh the added bureaucracy. Aberrancies can be, and are, dealt with as they arise. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   What is the "added bureaucracy"? It seems pretty much like no change from current best practice to me. Encourage additional reviewers, discourage quickfails, but still keep the process agile. What's not to like? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Mandatory 3 days? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Why is that a problem? It provides a minimal level of quality-control, and even if an article is then failed once the three days are up, the nominator has at least been given an opportunity to respond to the review per current best practice. The sole reason GA exists is to improve article quality, and I think we need to be doing everything we can (within reason!) to help those editors keen enough to use our project. EyeSerene^talk 09:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose - My big fear is that it will turn into a FAC-like experience. The way it is now, a reviewer has to put in a lot of work to do a GA review. The times I have responded to a "Second opinion" have also involved much work to justify. If reviewers were encouraged to "pop in" with ease and therefore with less weighty opinions (without thorough thought and justification), it might turn more into an FAC "counting the Supports" situation. Perhaps someone can reassure me this will not happen. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   This is why we clearly defined the role of the lead reviewer - the last thing we want is FA-lite! All additional opinions would be welcome, but it would be up to the lead reviewer's discretion to decide whether or not they are sufficiently grounded in WP:WIAGA to justify extending or even failing the assessment. I know I've missed things on articles I've reviewed, and comments such as "Source X looks a bit iffy" or "Sentence Y probably needs a citation" would have been useful to me ;) EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose - These changes appear to have been "biased" towards marginal GANs that are heading towards a possible failure. On this basis holding the review open for a minimum of three days provides an opportunity for interested editors to improve the candidate. Fair enough perhaps, but why presumption of failure? The majority of the candidates do not fail. A "Good Article", under these guidelines cannot be declared a GA-pass until three days after the review has been opened!! I fail to see how this can shorten the GAN waiting lists, improve the quality, or motivate editors and GA reviewers.Pyrotec (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose - While I appreciate the effort, I think this will discourage people from becoming the main GA reviewer. The way the system is set up right now, other reviewers can chime in during the review period if the article is placed on hold for changes to be fixed. Why make an editor (who is likely planning to improve other articles to GA when the review is done) wait three days if their article is perfectly fine? This change appears that it would both slow the reviewing of GA articles, and the production of GA articles. Do we really want that? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Unnecessary change, seemingly for the sake of change. This is most definitely adding more bureacracy, and I don't think the benefits will come close to outweighing the harm done to the process. I certainly wouldn't be willing to review articles in such a complicated manner. As it stands now, we have the GA sweeps and people keep an eye on the GAN page. When suspicious passes are noticed, they are reverted or discussed here. If a poor quality GA is noticed at any time, people should know to go to GAR or discuss it here. The main page proclaims that "anyone can edit", not that "anyone can edit, but then a process will be initiated in which other editors will scrutinize the work done to ensure that it meets a certain standard, at which point the edit will be accepted, leaving the initial editor free to repeat the process if he or she hasn't been turned off by the lack of trust demonstrated by the close analysis of what was intended to be a helpful contribution." GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

   I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. Anyone can edit, yes, but most edits are also scrutinised via watchlists, RCP etc. This proposal isn't saying "we don't trust our GA reviewers to do a decent job", but is rather about how we can help to make all reviews consistently high-quality, how we can welcome and support new reviewers, and how we can be seen to be doing so. I've no idea where your opinion lies on the in-article GA recognition issue, but I think if we're ever going to convince the doubters across WP at large, these small but important procedural changes are the sort of thing that will help. EyeSerene^talk 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose. The only real change being suggested is waiting 3 days before making a decision. That's an arbitrary time and has nothing to do with the quality of the review. Adding extra time will not of itself improve quality, simply delay activity. Somebody can spend an intense 3 hours on a review and explain in detail with helpful links why an article has failed and how to improve the article. Another person can open a review and do sod all for four weeks. What has time got to do with anything? SilkTork *^YES! 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

    I appreciate your concerns, but in your first hypothetical case what harm will be done by completing the review in three hours then leaving it open for further comment for the three-day minimum? Additional comments may well be helpful and improve the original review. In the second case, a review that has been listed as open for four weeks would hopefully attract attention from other reviewers, and appropriate action would be taken. The proposal is about actively encouraging collaborative reviewing and sharing best practice - the three-day minimum is a compromise between introducing a minimal level of quality-control and still allowing the process to function smoothly. EyeSerene^talk 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

    This change is driven, in part, by pressure from GAN nominators to reduce the time before "their" article is reviewed (and presumably passed). Under the current system we can pass an article in three hours - and I have done one in that timeframe - changing the system to a minimum of three days is not going to speed up the system. It provides no benefit to the GAN nominator and it provides no benefit to the reviewer. Why screw the reviewer?Pyrotec (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

11. The GA criteria are light enough that anyone can do a complete review with a little training. Therefore there is no need to turn it into a discussion. GAR is the appropriate forum for difficult cases and faulty reviews. That said, I do support some sort of process improvement to cut down on the constant backlog. An idea that I have previously posted here is to speed up the rejection process for articles that aren't ready because the nominators have not read or didn't follow the GA criteria. Wronkiew (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
12. I also do not see why a review needs to be open three days. Already I have passed two articles (George H.D. Gossip and Nico Ditch) almost without delay from the moment I read them because other reviewers who were familiar with the subject matter made sure the articles were high quality. Sometimes it is possible to say, "Okay, this article is fine and can be passed without delay." Usually this is not possible, but for the times that it is possible I wish not to wait 3 days. Crystal whacker (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, at this stage: With the current backlog, I don't see how a system which requires the input of more reviewers, and seemingly more work, is feasible. However, I'm happy to move to a support !vote if the backog issue is 'addressed' (so to speak), or if anyone can argue effectively that this proposal could solve both issues (backlog and quality). Apterygial 12:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   The proposal encourages rather than requires additional reviewers - what we didn't want to end up with was FA-lite, or to introduce bottlenecks that would exacerbate the backlog :P The intention is to promote a non-intrusive and collaborative form of quality-control; the open review and the three-day minimum should prevent drive-by reviews and discourage inappropriate reviewers and poor reviews. Increasing our pool of reviewers is my preferred way of addressing the backlog, but with all the templates, criteria, multiple page updates etc, GA reviewing isn't the easiest task to just pick up. Providing newbies with a safe and welcoming way to get involved, under the eye of a more experienced reviewer, will certainly make things easier for them and I hope result in a long-term payoff. EyeSerene^talk 13:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   But it will still worsen backlog. Ruslik (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   We can speculate on the likely effect, but one of the key ideas of the proposal is to encourage new reviewers. The backlog issue is not going to be solved by tweaking "stipulation x" or "process y". It is only going to be addressed by ensuring that reviewer numbers grow in proportion to nominations. Reviewer numbers have been growing, but not fast enough. This proposal may actually help. Geometry guy 20:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   I'm still not entirely sure. For me, this system doesn't seem all that different to what we already have. People don't come along and comment now, my view is that it will just be the lead reviewer sitting there waiting for someone, anyone, to come along and comment. And it may not be all that welcoming; newbies may be afraid that their ideas don't count for anything because they don't seem to have any say in the final decision. Finally, I don't know about you, but I kind of like the one-on-one way the current system works: the nominator and the reviewer working together to improve an article. You said that you wanted to avoid FA-lite, I'm afraid you may have found it. Apterygial 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   I agree. Actually I don't think this proposal is significantly different from what we have now. It is a different way of looking at what we have now, which might actually lead to better practice. If you have enjoyed one-on-one, I think you've been lucky. GANs involving just two editors are the easiest ones to handle. Geometry guy 23:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   ...and very rewarding, as Apterygial says ;) As noted above though, the lead reviewer should still perform their review as normal, and unlike FA the article still passes or fails at their discretion. This proposal is intended to make learning the GA review process and performing quality reviews easier - perhaps not so much for our experienced reviewers, but certainly for new or less-experienced reviewers. I think we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by giving it a try. EyeSerene^talk 10:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral - I agree with Apterygial (talk · contribs) that more instruction creep would worsen the persistent backlog. Also, GA is supposed to be a light process, and having multiple reviewers is FAC-esque. I don't know, I guess it could work, but reviewing GANs have become somewhat of a chore; I liked the days when one could open a thread on a talk page and preform the review right then and there. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 14:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral - I can't see "secondary" reviwers turning up very often, because we're short of reviewers. --Philcha (talk)
3. Neutral, lean Oppose The reviews have always been open. What's the point? And will add another layer of instructions, etc. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Yes they have, in theory. How many actually get any secondary input though? True, that's partly due to the shortage of reviewers, but also I think due to an understandable reluctance to give the impression of 'muscling in' uninvited on someone else's review. The difference here is we're actively welcoming and encouraging it, while clearly defining roles to keep the lead reviewer in charge. I suspect many reviews under the proposed system would still be solo affairs, but formally welcoming other reviewers into the process can only benefit review quality. Re your other point, this is intended to replace, rather than add to, the current instructions. EyeSerene^talk 17:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral I'd be worried that this may lead to GA becoming FA lite. However, I see the benefits that it could encourage more people to help out with reviews who wouldn't normally, and also more eyes on a review lead to a better verdict, and potentially reduce the backlog. Peanut4 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral Doesn't this statement already provide encouragement for further reviewers on GAN? "Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome)." I'm unsure of the benefits of the proposed changes; I don't really see any problems either but surely additional policy should have clear benefits? I think drive-by reviews haven't been a problem as of late anyway. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral, as per comments from Sillyfolkboy above, adding the "On review" template under the GAN entry already provides encouragement for other reviewers to contribute. I'm less certain about the need for this mandatory three-day period.Pyrotec (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral but unfortunately I am leaning toward oppose. I appreciate and understand what the working party is trying to do, but I think that the GA process is confusing enough for new reviewers and I don't think this is going to improve things, only delay the passage of many articles that are good enough at first review. Although I don't have a solution to the issue of recruiting new reviewers (mentoring perhaps), I think there is a simple way to ensure that reviews are of consistent quality without imposing any delay or extra "paperwork": make all reviews appear at the top of the GA page for 48 hours after they pass. This way anyone looking at the page can see the newest reviews and those that don't measure up can instantly be put through WP:GAR to ensure they meet the requirements.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral and skeptical. The idea might work, but it sounds cumbersome. I am agreeable to a limited test to see if the concept works. Majoreditor (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions

1. Question: Will there be an expectation of the lead reviewer, as there currently is for the sole reviewer, to review the article thoroughly against all GA criteria? Because if there is, I don't see much of a functional difference, beyond the requirement to leave it open three days (which I think most are anyway). If there isn't, I'm concerned that will see reviews opened, but never completed for want of reviewer comments. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   In short, yes, the lead reviewer would review as thoroughly as possible ;) You're right, in most ways there is no functional difference. The difference is, I think, more in emphasis - additional reviewers (while not required) are actively encouraged to take a look at the article. If they spot nothing, fine. If they do though, we end up with a better overall review. The other big benefit is that new reviewers can be encouraged to wet their feet by participating in a existing reviews until they feel ready to take on the lead role. EyeSerene^talk 12:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Well then, I have no objection to this proposal. I'm still skeptical as to how much good it will do, because it doesn't really seem like we have an abundance of GA reviewers that might lead to multiple reviewers per article, but if formalizing a three day window and nominally encouraging multiple reviewers will help the GA brand be taken more seriously, it's fine with me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Does "The review should remain open for at least 3 days" mean no quick fails? I would be quite happy if it did mean that, as some editors respond quickly and are willingto work hard at imprving artciles? --Philcha (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   I believe so, yes, and no 'quick-passes' either, though I'm open to correction by the other proposers. However, we could still handle utterly unsuitable articles or drive-by noms, as currently, on a case-by-case basis. EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another question

• What happens when the reviewers adamantly don't agree? Suppose the "lead reviewer" points out some flaws. Two other reviewers disagree vigorously and recommend listing the article as GAN. Or visa versa. Will this increase GARs? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  It might, but I don't regard that as a bad thing. Since the introduction of review subpages, the number of GARs has dropped significantly. The initial decision is up to the lead reviewer, but that can certainly be challenged at GAR, just as it can be now. My observation is that an increase in accountability actually reduces the number of GARs. But GAR can certainly cope with more reassessments (there used to be dozens, but now there is typically only a handful). Geometry guy 20:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  I did the GAR review on Western Wall - see Talk:Western Wall/GA1 - I was expecting a possible rough ride. I still think my decisions were valid.Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  I looked at Talk:Western Wall/GA1 and couldn't figure out what happened there regarding the GAR? It occurred in the middle of the GA? The only ones I have experienced are Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Brenda Song/1 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1 - both of which seemed inefficient. I would not get involved in one again I don't think. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  It continues on the talk:Western Wall. I think some people find what the expect to find, even when it is not necessarily there.Pyrotec (talk)

  I don't understand what you mean in your comment above, Pyrotec. If people only find what they expect, then what is the point of having GARs. Or am I missing your point? I don't understanding having a GAR in the middle of a GA. I just checked talk:Western Wall and see the article is listed as GA. Odd situation. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  Woops, I see the problem I was not referring to Good Article Reassessment (GAR) I was using "GAR" as shorthand for GA review. My GA reviews tend to be split into three: initial review, problems and "holds", and summary and sentence. I hope that clarifies the first point.Pyrotec (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  (unindent so as not to disrupt the subthread) Those two GARs were very untypical and neither should have gone on for so long. If no one else can, or no one complains, I will move such GARs along more expediently in the future. Geometry guy 23:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for doing so in those two cases! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Getting editors interested in reviewing

Upon asking for reviews in the past, I've often gotten replied like "I'm too lazy" or "I don't know how to go about doing so." To eliminate this type of problem, I wonder if an automated review-type sheet would be better. My suggestion would be the type of pop-up used with Twinkle, for reporting users, requesting protection and deletion, etc.

To open a review, an editor would click on the link to the page, which would bring them to an automated pop up. On the pop-up, there would be drop-down lists and text boxes. Each drop-down box would be for a specific article quality (ex. images, prose, references). In the drop-down box can be things comments (ex. Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor). Next to each drop-down box would be a text box where specific comments about the topic (images, prose, references...) could be made. It is an idea, and would be a work to get the coding and other issues banged out. ayematthew ✡ 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support that because that is one of the main reasons I stopped GA Reviewing. But how would this come about?--SRX 23:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• How would that differ from the template? The complaint about the template is that it encourages the supperfical types of reviews that have give GAs such a bad name. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): The prose stinks but is acceptable b (MoS): Only a few violations so it passes

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): More, rather than less, accurate b (citations to reliable sources): They are to books so I am assuming good faith. c (OR): See previous comment.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): yes b (focused): yes

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: I think the same way so I can't tell.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Yes, but I don't know much about fair use rationales b (appropriate use with suitable captions): They seem fine.

7. Overall: A GA article

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't help but feel that any popups or anything would just lead to more disconnected superficiality. Apterygial 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Although that template seems fine, it's the fact that it seems like more work. Whether people think it's a stupid reason for not reviewing or not, it's a reason people stop reviewing. A quick easy-looking way to conduct a review would certainly get me reviewing a lot more :) ayematthew ✡ 00:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that reviewing a GA is work. Any "quick easy-looking way" defeats the purpose of a quality review, to my way of thinking. When the reviews are superficial, then the FAC reviewers complain, because many editors take their article right to FAC, thinking that a GA review actually means something. That has been a problem in the past and that is why FAC complain that GA is at best useless, and mostly bad and misleading! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the open review proposal above is a good way to encourage new editors. It can indeed be daunting to look at the GAN page and instructions, but being invited to look at current open reviews and make a comment provides an easy way in for people. After contributing to a few, they may find they understand the process and criteria enough to have a go themselves. Gwinva (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, GA reviews should not be about filling in a couple of blanks on a form to fill in part of the process towards FAC. Indeed, process 1 on the pass procedure, says to explain how the article can be improved. Peanut4 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Matisse, the problem you pose can just as simply be solved by reducing FA criteria to a point where mere mortals have a chance at succeeding if they follow directions. With millions--millions!--of articles, FA is an inordinate waste of time and drain on resources. Wikipedia would be a better place if all the FA participants took a month off from FA work and devoted all their effort to making mediocre articles good, rather than good articles great. Of course, they wouldn't be able to refer to WP:DASH all that often, but I'm sure most of them would survive. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mere mortals passing FAC! WP:DASH to you!! (Or, up your WP:DASH!) —Mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I could see how a pop-up style GA review would both encourage new editors and simplify reviews. To be honest, I don't even know what a real GA review is supposed to be like. Just looking at the recent history we can see that approaches range from the concise, to the well ordered, from the dialogue pow-wow to the anally specific. This is perhaps one of GA's best features: the ability to transform itself in the face of various needs. A pop-up menu "(pass/fail/other)" style would severely restrict this. Perhaps we could use an auto-review popup to encourage a thorough reviewing style somehow? (Rather than: "Prose= Y comment= No speeling errors") At the moment the templates are very helpful, if slightly cumbersome. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have never used the template in GA reviews, and I probably never will. Why? Because this template may tell you (the article writer) that something is wrong, but not where and how it can be fixed. Writing up prose improvement notes takes considerably longer than filling out the template, but the article will be so much better afterwards, and the article editor may learn something and avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future. What has my reply to do with "Getting editors interested in reviewing"? Nothing, except if we want more lousy and lazy editors for reviews. (I submitted four successful GANs before I felt comfortable to do my first GA review, and nothing could have piqued my interest before. That's the unfortunate game, but at least none of my GA reviews sucked... I hope.) – sgeureka ^t•c 18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The template can be the basis of a good conveersation and instructions on how to make an article meet the criteria. Talk:Bunnies & Burrows/GA1 and Talk:Gary Gygax/GA1 are a couple of mine that I've used in that fashion--actually, any of my recent ones tend to use the template in this narrative way. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree, but I usually summarize all points with "Broad in its coverage, stability, neutrality, MOS, sourcing all check out. Image XYZ could be problematic though." Maybe I always get lucky with my GANs to reviews, but an article either fails many of the WIAGA points, or nearly none, so why bother with a template that spans 1.5 screen pages and doesn't tell the article writer anything new. If your version works for you, great, don't let my comments stop you from using it. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• That is the pleasure of GA reviews, from my view. I usually go into way more detail than you do. We each can function at our own comfort level. I would hate to see this change. But if it does, through new rules, I will just move on to another aspect of Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In the six GA reviews that I have done, I use the the template to organize my thoughts, but I always leave detailed comments below. I thought that all reviewers who used templates did it that way, evidently that is not the case. In addition, I wish that people would stop beating up on FAs and FAC. Yes, there is more focus on the MOS, as there should be; our best work should maintain some level of formatting consistency. However, I have yet to see an article fail or a reviewer oppose solely because of MOS issues. In fact, when there are MOS issues, reviewers usually take the time to fix them, rather than waste time explaining the simple things. If anybody feels that the reviews at FAC or articles being passed that they feel should not, they should help out with the reviewing instead of just criticizing. Not a rant, just a tired response to this uncalled-for bashing that seems to happen everywhere and belies the time and effort that the relatively few (compared to the long list of candidates that FAC seems to have) reviewers put in. Dabomb87 (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to everyone also! Dabomb87 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I do help out - at least I used to do so until it got too unpleasant. Now I just edited a few articles in the FAC queue and support those few. However, most reviewers just give long lists of MOS problems and it becomes impossible to follow the complaint thread with the interruptions and "discussion". Can't tell who said what after a while. Some editors make one or two edits, but mostly that say something like "I read the lead only, and this list represents only a sample of the problems." I have seen plenty of article fail on MoS issues alone. (I haven't seen your name reviewing there, however. When were you doing a lot of reviewing there? Get over to FAC and review some articles!) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"I have seen plenty of article fail on MoS issues alone." Have you really? I defy you to provide a link to even one article you've seen fail "on MoS issues alone". --Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded Malleus' request. "I read the lead only, and this list represents only a sample of the problems" As it should be, FAC is not a free fix-it service. Some FACs have become little more than peer reviews with little Supports or Opposes tacked on. In the past I used to do that quite a bit; I am trying to shift away from that mentality and am allowing myself to be a bit more free with the opposes "(I haven't seen your name reviewing there, however" Quite true, I left FAC around October because of some problems with drama and such. I have since returned. From August to October, I would say that I reviewed about 25 or so FACs. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Something should be done to get more reviewers to review, the sports section is insane (63 noms)--{{SUBST:UserTruco/Signature}} 02:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

What would you suggest? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need an incentive to promote reviews. The only currency we have is other reviews. Apparently this is a perrential sugguestion that never leads to anything, but I think we need some sort of quid pro quo. I know I'd review an article or two, if it would speed up my noms. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So why not just review a few articles above yours in the queue? Or am I missing something? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There's about 30 articles ahead of one of my noms. It's not enough motivation. I do a review for each nom, but apparently that isn't the general case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Its been awhile since I reviewed, since I lost my motivation. Too bad there isn't anything like "Review X amount of articles an be an admin for a day", but I think we should set up like a tournament or something similar to the WIkicup.--TRUCO 00:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be something self-sustaining. We have mass attacks on the backlog, and it just goes back up afterwards becuase people are drained. I'll tell you, right now I would review two articles of my choice, or one article of someone else's choice, if someone would review one of my articles. Since we don't have a system for that, I'm just working on my next GAN, which is going to increase the backlog. I see some people with a ton of noms, and I think they may be on to something. If you add 3-5 GANs every week, after a month you'll start gettin a review every couple days. It's like if you can create 15 GANS, in a way you don't have to wait anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think a system like that should restart, I will review yours if you review mines--TRUCO 01:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Informing nominators of GA expectations

A lot of this comment is copied from an earlier comment of mine in another discussion, as this seems to be where the proposals are. With regards to reducing the backlog, I, for one, believe part of the solution needs to come from making it clearer to nominators what the GA process is, and what is expected of them. GAN isn't about "well, I've expanded this article a little and it looks pretty cool and the topic is interesting, what do I have to lose in a GA nom?" (as I, admittedly, first thought). We need to make it clearer that GA has (or at least, should have) quite high standards. I bet most reviewers look at the article before they sign up to review it, and if they see a one-line lead, typos and no references, it could sit at GAN for ages. On the other hand, reviewing articles from someone like TonyTheTiger is much better, because he knows what is expected. So we need to make Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles more prominent, and expand it so it makes clear that GA should not be an experiment or a push-over. Improvement in articles pre-nom would lead to more reviewers as the review itself would not be, as Philcha says (a long way above), "a grind". Any ideas how we could achieve this? Apterygial 13:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all that you have said above. In addition, I would suggest that the potential submitter of a GAN should do at least three things:

1. The first is to look at existing GA-class articles within the same topic / subtopic and ask the question, does my article compare favourably against these articles?
2. Read Wikipedia:Good article criteria - which is given on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page.
3. Read Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles - which is given on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page.

Pyrotec (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Reviewing articles from someone like TonyTheTiger is much better" - How so? He's one of the leading contributors to the problem at hand. His race with Mitchazenia has led to countless nominations from both editors. As stated many times before, however, the problem is with nominators who are unwilling to review articles. He has nominated over 200 articles and has reviewed 8. I have left polite messages on both editors' talk pages, but neither have been willing to help cut down on the backlog to which they have contributed. I would much rather review an article nominated by someone who might be willing to review someone else's article in return. I think this points, quite conclusively, to the need to (very) strongly encourage editors to review a nomination for each nomination they put up. If they are familiar enough with the criteria to nominate an article (ie. they should have already read and becoem familiar with the criteria), it's time to start reviewing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing a GA review properly would still be a grind, because of all the ref-checking. However making nominators aware of the requirements would reduce the frequency of a double grind, where a reviwer points out the problems in refs and then has to check them all again when the article's supporters say they are fixed.

I still think we need to think of incentives for reviewers, as reviewing is a lot less fun than editing. --Philcha (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The incentive is surely that the encyclopedia is improved by the review, albeit it only one article at a time. All adds up though. What other incentive is needed? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan, I'm not interested in taking cheap shots at other editors. My point here was not to explain completely how to deal with the backlog, but to simply mention one thing that could be done. Reviewing an experienced nominator's articles is easier and less of a grind than reviewing one from a new editor. That's it. The way we combat this problem needs to come from all angles, not just that of the reviewer. Apterygial 23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in taking cheap shots either. When one looks at the GAN page objectively, however, it is hard to miss two things: (1) there is a serious backlog, and (2) TonyTheTiger has 18 nominations. Perhaps it's just a personal preference, but one of the things I look for when reviewing an article is the nominator's history at GAN: (1) Has the nominator nominated a ton of other articles? and (2) Does the nominator refuse to review other nominations? If the answer to either question is yes, I'm probably not going to review it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm with GaryColemanFan on this. I've managed over 100 reviews myself and nominated only about nine. To be honest, I don't do it for the competition, but I've seen nominators who aren't even appreciative of the review. We all have ways of picking out what to or what not to review. I've nothing against TonyTheTiger, especially when good and featured articles are merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to articles, so his efforts are to be highly applauded, but there will be potential reviewers out there who will be annoyed by nominators who don't care about the review, just the end result, and are totally unwilling to do any reviews themself. A "one in-one out" policy would reduce any backlog, but let's be honest, some people are good writers, some good reviewers. Peanut4 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually proposed something like that about a week ago, but it failed to get any traction. I'd like to think I'm a good writer and a good reviewer, but I get little enjoyment out of reviewing. Apterygial 23:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I myself backed up the idea to cap nominations. But I don't agree any more. Users like TonyTheTiger are vital in improving the quality of work here, so why cap them from doing so. And just because he's a good writer, doesn't make him necessarily a good reviewer, so there's no need to limit his work that way either. Peanut4 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't either now. What I do see is a lot of people complaining about the current system but providing little indication about how to fix it. So, my original proposal, 'Informing nominators of GA expectations'. Good idea? Apterygial 23:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(redent) I'm sure it's been brought up before, but how about some way to get your article reviewed faster if you review another article. We would need to prevent, "you pass mine, I'll pass yours", but I know I'd review more if it could get mine done quicker. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Going back to your original point, I think you actually have a sound basis for some reasoning. I notice at FAC, that SandyGeorgia says she has clear ideas of what needs to be improved, etc, when an article is first proposed. Some GAs are very good, some are nearly there, but some are clearly not ready. Quick-fails aren't necessarily the best answer, and we can't force editors to go through a peer review first, but I support your proposals to put articles in a better shape when they are nominated. Peanut4 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by nomination

I have been working on an article Martin Bucer for quite a while and it is nowhere near finished. Someone came by with a GA nomination. Can I simply remove the nomination? It is clearly not ready and if someone were to review it now, it would be a waste of his/her time. See Talk:Martin Bucer#GA nomination is too early. --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just remove the nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thinking it marginally better if an independent editor did the removal, I have removed it, with, I hope, a suitably descriptive edit summary. Also the nominator (incorrectly) started the review subpage (leaving it empty), so I have deleted it.

There have been other cases where a nomination needed to be removed without a review. On the talk page "quick-failing" was suggested as an option. To my mind this illustrates that Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#First_things_to_look_for covers two quite distinct things. One is inappropriate nominations, which can be removed administratively without a review. The other is nominations which can be failed without a hold period, but leaving a review. I really think that these should be distinguished in our guidelines to reflect what we want to do in practice. Geometry guy 20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be two separate procedures. Editors who feel diffident about GA reviews (as I did less than 9 months ago) might be deterred by having a fail recorded in the article's Talk page. What's the easy way to remove a review page in this situation? --Philcha (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominator's shouldn't start review pages, so it should only be necessary to remove the GAnominee template, and the listing at GAN. If the nominator does start a review page, as in this case, an admin is needed to delete it, but there are plenty of admins watchlisting this page. Geometry guy 21:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Philcha (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the nomination. I will bring it back here when I am done. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We've had the same on Huntington's disease, which led (eventually) to discussion on WP:ANI. Is there a procedure for removing bad-faith or drive-by nomination. JFW | T@lk 08:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, the best we have is WP:IAR (i.e., common sense), but see above for the relation to "quick-failing" and a proposal to split the latter into "administrative removal" and "failing without a hold". Geometry guy 13:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely feel free to use WP:IAR for drive-by nominations. It doesn't happen that often from what I've seen at GAN (I try and check every incoming article when I can) but when it does happen, such as a person who has never edited an article that someone else has been working on for weeks nominates the article, then undo the nomination. Gary King (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by fail

I've been reviewing Dale's principle and it's looking like a scientific detective story (who said what when?). There was a lull over Christmas & New Year. I asked for some action 3 days ago, and the main editor responded. At 20:17 to-day Doc James appeared out of the blue and failed the article. I consider this discourteous to all concerned. Please comment. --Philcha (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Will comment on the user talk page. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

James, since you didn't start the initial review, you had no right to fail the article. DiverseMentality 20:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Doc James certainly acted discourtesly, and perhaps ought to be gently reminded of how the GA review process works. However, I think that a fail was the correct decision, as this article falls so far short of the GA criteria on so many levels. So in that sense at least, no real harm done I suppose. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I was less sure that a fail was inevitable. If the user got stuck into the research, mainly about who said what when, I think it would then have been easy to structure. After that, copyediting is not too hard (I'd have asked Malleus if I had doubts about that!) because it can generally be done para by para. --Philcha (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You could always take it to WP:GAR yourself if you want a wider spectrum of opinion. From just a quick look I'd say that the biggest problem I see is with the article's structure. I'm like you though, in that I hate to have to fail an article (just take a look at Hubert Maga, for instance), so I do agree that Doc James' action was unfortunate, and I hope he won't be tempted to repeat it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Trouble with WP:GAR is that it assumes the article either is a borderline would-be GA or an old GA that's off the pace. Dale's principle is shortof that, but could be sorted out in well under week by a determined editor - it's not a long article. If I were acting unilaterally I'd just reverse the fail and tell the editor he has another 4 days. What do people think? --Philcha (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

GAR wouldn't work, as there is too much to do. You could reverse the fail on a technicality, but I don't think that is the best way. There is simple solution, and it lies at the heart of GA: articles can be renominated at any time. Tell the editor the main problems, ask them to fix them and renominate. Then take up the review yourself as soon as it is nominated and steer the article through the review process, hopefully with a happy outcome for the encyclopedia.

This is another case where we need to clarify the "lead reviewer" concept from the open review proposal to reflect current practice and allow reviewers to do their job more freely and effectively. At the moment, we cannot really say that Doc James action was incorrect. Geometry guy 23:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)This article in my opinion is so far from a GA status that it would take many weeks of hard work to bring it up to GA. It has been on review for a month with little work. It is still labeled as a start which I think is appropriate. It needs to work through C and B classes before it is nominated. I do not think it is good practice to have article at GA review for months on a time. Yes I agree that Philcha should have been the one to fail it and he or she can reverse what I have done if he or she sees fit. Wikipedia does need standards however.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article should have been failed, but by Philcha. That being said, one cannot be afraid to fail an article. If it's not close, point out the issues and fail it, don't leave it at GAN for 3-4 months with no guarantees. Wizardman 01:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer not to assume that other editors can't do what I've done. While working on invertebrate phyla I noticed Spider was up for GAR, and was almost a citation-free zone. Since I already had a couple of good invertebrate zoology textbooks from a local library, I re-wrote the article. This took nearly 2 weeks rather than the "standard" 1 week, and I was grateful for the reviewer's patience. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Drive by promotion of Zarqa River

I signed my name to review Zarqa River, but when I went to write the review I found someone else had just opened and filled out the review page: Talk:Zarqa River/GA1. Should I just write over it, or what? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If the article had actually been listed, then it would be better to start an individual or community GAR. However, it hasn't: only the WikiProject rating has been changed and the review so far only states that the article "appears" to meet the criteria. I've fixed the talk page. You may have to negotiate with the other reviewer, but you need to add to the review shortly.

• It turned out not to be a problem as it was clear that the first "review" was by an editor who did not know the process. The original reviewer registered on wikipedia in December and looking at the user page, seemed very much to be a newbie. I asked Geometry guy what to do, and I interpreted his actions to mean that I should just continue. So I posted my prepared review, prepared shortly after I flagged the article for for review. (I was just in that short time that the "new" review appeared.) The article's editor accepted my review with appreciation and we are working on the article. So - no problem after all! —Mattisse (Talk) 05:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is another case which shows to me that our guidelines do not reflect best practice or help reviewers carry out reviews in the way they want to. I think we need to encourage reviewers to start the review page early, with initial comments, and encourage the idea of a "lead reviewer" who guides the course of the review and makes the final decision. The "On review" template at WP:GAN sends the wrong message and apparently doesn't always work. Geometry guy 22:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's right. The lead reviewer needs to plant a flag on the review page early in the process. In this particular case, I think that Mattisse and the other reviewer just have to find a way of working together. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I did not know there was a "flag" other than signing up in GAN to review the page and starting the review. The additional "flag" of which you speak definitely needs to be added to the instructions, as I do not know about it. I know that there is a problem when people sign up to review a page, but then do nothing for days or weeks. But I am not one of those. As far as the suggestion that I should work it out with the new reviewer, I would not put any energy in to doing that. If the new reviewer was clearly misguided, as in my case, there is no problem and the new revieweer did not insist. If the new reviewer insisted on doing the reviewing, I would remove myself from the case. I know how easily things can get ugly and I am not willing to engage over a fight over who reviewers the page. Too much potential for down side. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mattisse - a fight over who reviews the page would be a very bad result. I suspect I'd check the Talk pages of the other reviewer, the article's editor(s) and the most recent contributors ot the article's Talk page to see if there was any sign of either collusion or feuding. If not, I'd back off but watch the review page. If the "background check" showed anything that bothered me, I might have a word with the other reviewer. If further events made me seriously uneasy, I'd post a message here. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Could I add a general request not to use the loaded phrase "Drive by" in section titles. It implies a knowledge of editor intentions which is contrary to WP:AGF. I do not address this request at any editor in particular, as it is an attractive meme which does convey the point very concisely. However, I know that colleagues at WP:GAN are intelligent and imaginative editors who can find other ways to convey their point with casting doubt on good faith. Thanks, Geometry guy 23:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. In my case it was a pure case of a new "reviewer" not knowing the process, so no harm done. I just continued with my review with no protest but only thanks from those involved. So drive-by is needlessly stigmatizing. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Poor quality articles

There have been a number of poor quality articles at GA review lately. They were at the stub/start/C levels see Talk:Dale's principle, Talk:Gastritis, Talk:Human musculoskeletal system. If this is not the case now I think we need to state that articles should be at a level B before they are nominated for GA review. Ie. you can find someone from a wiki project who also beleives it is of B quality. If the article is from many wiki project all should be of B level. Otherwise they should be peer reviewed. Anyway just my thoughts. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a requirement for articles being at B-level to be nominated for GA. Articles must already meet the GA criteria prior to listing, and as such, all listed GAs should cover the B-class criteria as well. But the stub/start/C/B/A system is governed by wikiprojects, some of which are more developed and some less developed. Some of the more developed wikiprojects may already have this unwritten rule of B-class prior to GA nomination, but I don't think we should penalize the less developed wikiprojects from this. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The good article process is lightweight. The only issue which should determine whether an article is listed or not is whether it meets the good article criteria. WikiProject ratings, in particular B-Class, have both a different purpose (tracking progress) and a different focus (content rather than style and policy). Some articles are not within the scope of any active WikiProject. Some WikiProjects (e.g. MILHIST, WP1.0) have devised their own B-Class criteria. These are not GA requirements. For all these reasons, in addition to those mentioned by Dr. Cash, it makes no sense to require B-Class for GA nominations. Geometry guy 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it makes no sense to require B-Class for GA nominations. In some cases Wikiprojects do not respond to requests for reviews. I've recently brought some articles on invertebrate phyla / sub-phyla to GA, and my earleir requests for comments from Wikiprojects got no response - I guess because these articles were too technical or required too much research for most members. And, as Geometry guy said, some are not within the scope of any active WikiProject.

Doc James has a point though. I've reviewed some articles that were a long way off GA standard. A very few were hopeless unless a "super-hero" came to the rescue. A greater number had statements either not supported by refs or not actually supported by the refs they cited. I suggest the box "How to nominate an article" should be more emphatic, e.g. "Articles are expected to be at or very near GA standard before they are nominated. Please read the Wikipedia:Good article criteria and do your own review first." --Philcha (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The quality criteria are presented as a continuum. From stub / start always up to FA. This makes it appear that B class criteria are required before GA status can be obtained. If these are separate criteria and B quality does not relate to GA in any way then why order them? If they are indeed ordered then B is required before GA and GA required before FA. If an editor hasn't tried to get a B quality before they apply for GA I feel that this is a show of bad faith or poor understanding of how wiki article rating works. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: the WikiProject quality assessments are presented as a continuum. Some editors at Wikipedia 1.0 wish to promote this to a Wikipedia wide scale, which it plainly isn't. Please do not be fooled by GA-Class (this is widely recognized as a historical mistake). At GA we have a simple binary decision to make: does the article meet the criteria or not? For articles which are a long way short of the criteria, that decision is easier to make, and it is easier to leave a review pointing to some of the main failings. Or, alternatively, the reviewer may want to give hard-working editors a chance: it is up to the reviewer. That is what our guidelines need to clarify. Geometry guy 23:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much that's been said, it makes little sense to introduce the requirement for a B-classification before submitting to GAN. I also take some exception to the implicit notion that all articles which do not meet the GA criteria are of therefore by definition of "poor quality". Some may be, perhaps even the majority, but we ought not to delude ourselves that GA means "good article" in any absolute sense. I've not infrequently come across I articles I would consider to be "good", but which would fail at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha, you can say that again. Also, not all articles' assessments are up to date, so a quick look at the assessment might not mean anything. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I've had to delist over 70 of the olders GAs myself. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, I would not suggest that all articles which do not meet the GA criteria are of therefore by definition of "poor quality". The problem is that quite a lot of articles submitted for GA review are a long way from meeting the GA criteria - perhaps as much as 40% that I've reviewed. That's why I suggested the box "How to nominate an article" should be more emphatic. --Philcha (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"A long way from meeting the GA criteria" perhaps, but a motivated nominator can sometimes achieve miracles during the hold period with a little guidance from a motivated reviewer. Perhaps I just don't see the problem in the same way as some others. What's the purpose of GA? To improve the quality of the encyclopedia as effectively and efficiently as possible. So if articles are improved during their GANs, that aim is achieved even if they're ultimately not listed. So there's a backlog. So what? Better that than no editors submitting articles, or trying to choke off the supply of GANs by imposing restrictions. There will never be a perfect match between the number of nominations and the speed at which they are being processed anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the aim of GA is "to improve the quality of the encyclopedia", and would add "to improve editors". I merel ysuggest we should make editors more aware of the GA criteria. If they learn how to be objective about their own articles, they will improve even faster. --Philcha (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

... and the best place to learn about the GA criteria is at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I have always assumed that the purpose of the GA is as part of a ranking system for article quality. That it can lead to improvements in Wikipedia is just a secondary goal. If it is only for wiki improvement then why have a separate system from a peer review? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Because there are no criteria to be met at peer review, therefore it is not part of any quality ranking. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The GA criteria should reflect what is required for an article to be good quality. And I think they do. So I do not understand Malleus statement that he comes across many article which would not meet GA criteria yet are still good. This must mean either the criteria are wrong or we have different ideas of what is a good article.

If as Malleus says GA is part of a quality ranking and it sits between B/A and FA than it must fullfil the B/A criteria aswell as the GA criteria. If this is not required than we do not have a quality ranking system.

I disagree that the primary purpose of GA is to improve wikipedia. At Wikipedia:Good article criteria it makes it sound as if GA is here to recognize article that pass what are considered criteria needed for a article to be good. Article will improve with this process but this is just a side effect.

An article should be nominated for GA status when someone feels it meets GA status. If an article is "A long way from meeting the GA criteria" than I do not think it should have been nominated in the first place. This is unfair to those who have brough articles up to GA status or very close to such.

And finally the best place to learn about GA criteria is by reading them not by going through a good article nomination for an article that is no were close to being a GA.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You have either misunderstood or mis-remembered what I said. I have said repeatedly that GA does not sit between B/A and FA, but rather that both GA and FA are independent of the stub-start-C-B-A project ranking system. That point has been made by others here as well. If the primary purpose of GA is not to improve wikipedia, then I am clearly wasting my time with this project, as that is my sole motivation for participating in it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise (ec). Geometry guy 20:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(←) The GA criteria are one measure of what it means for an article to be good: they focus on compliance with policy, reasonable coverage and a readable and fairly consistent style. That is not the only definition of what it means to be good. WikiProjects have their own definitions of what it means to be good (e.g. A-Class), as do individual editors. GA is not in itself part of a quality ranking scheme. It has (mistakenly in my view) been adopted by WP1.0 (and hence other WikiProjects) as part of a quality ranking scheme in the form of GA-Class (which is not equivalent to GA, since GAs may also be A-Class). In practice most GAs meet the B-Class criteria of most WikiProjects, but that does not mean that these B-Class criteria are requirements for GA any more than use of American English is a GA requirement because most GAs use it.

The purpose of everything on Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia (this is the heart of Pillar Five). GA is no different: it seeks to improve the encyclopedia by recognizing a particular notion of what it means for an article to be good. The ideal of GA is that every article which meets the criteria should be listed, and every article which doesn't should not be. GAN and GAR are the tools we have to achieve that ideal. So in one sense, working towards that ideal is GA's primary purpose, but in another, it completely misses the point, which is why is that a good thing to do? It is a good thing to do because it improves the encyclopedia. That is more than a side effect, it is actually the underlying motivation and raison d'etre. Geometry guy 20:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus's "both GA and FA are independent of the stub-start-C-B-A project ranking system" (19:42, 20 January 2009). The project rankings can theoretically bring to bear better knowledge of the subject than GA reviewers generally can. However GA's big strength is independence. Projects can sometimes become in-groups that fall into various traps. One that I've seen is writing only for the in-group, in perspective and / or vocabulary. There's also been a spate of articles motivated by national pride, notably from people with allegiance to countries in SE Europe and SW Asia, who could award each other A-class and fail to realise what is / is not important to readers who are not compatriots. --Philcha (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review not updating on article Talk page

Talk:Superman Returns refuses to show the latest update to [[Talk:Superman Returns/GA3. Does anyone know how to fix this? --Philcha (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:PURGE. Geometry guy 23:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As a review

I have read through many complaints about a backlog of articles. Have commented on a number of articles that were at a GA review much to early which contributes to the backlog. Many people are using GA reviews as peer reviews.

There are two ways to deal with the backlog. One is to decrease the number of articles coming to GA review and the other is increasing the number reviewed.

I personally think decreasing the number coming to review would be easier. If there are major glaring errors such as no structure to the article or no references, one should just fail these and inform the submitter about the peer review process.

I think making criteria for an automatic fail would steam line the process.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is information on quick failing articles at Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles#How_to_review_an_article. Gary King (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, can you please clarify "automatic fail"? For example do you mean "mandatory immediate fail?" --Philcha (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks Philcha what I mean is mandatory immediate fail. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I find the notion of a mandatory fail to be entirely unacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If there are major glaring errors such as no structure to the article or no references, one should just fail these and inform the submitter about the peer review process. It does not appear that such articles would qualify for peer review either. WP:Peer review states that "Wikipedia's Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." Also, "Articles must be free of major cleanup banners". PSWG1920 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement to put GANs on hold, or to review every aspect of the article. For articles that fall a long way short of meeting the criteria, reviewers can (at their discretion) leave a short review given a few reasons why the article fails the criteria. There's no requirement for an in depth review. I think our guidelines could be clarified here, as at the moment they suggest that reviewers may either "quick-fail" the article or must read the entire article carefully. That's an unhelpful dichotomy and I do not believe it reflects what reviewers actually do; further this varies from reviewer to reviewer and review to review. Sometimes a reviewer will bend over backwards to help an enthusiastic nominator fix issues, sometimes a reviewer may prefer to fail without a hold, leaving fairly brief reasons in their review.

I have sometimes referred to the backlog because I believe we need to encourage more reviewers by giving them the flexibility to review according to their style. The basic idea is flexibility, but accountability, and I believe reviewers are responding to this: currently GAN enjoys record reviewer levels, as measured by the number of articles on review or on hold (see File:GANonreview.png). Geometry guy 20:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Re clean-up tags, I wouldn't fail an article on that account alone, and certainly wouldn't quick-fail because of clean-up tag(s) - I've seen clean-up tags used for POV-pushing. --Philcha (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Backlog

I noticed when I reviewed and removed Harry Potter in translation which was on the 10 oldest, but not 5 oldest, it removed it but did not add a new article to replace it.じんない 06:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are asking about the Backlog template at the top of the page, it updates by bot once a day - this is when the new articles are added. During the day, individual users can update it by removing one of the five oldest and adding one of the commented out articles into the top five, but new articles are only added once a day. I hope this explanation makes sense! Dana boomer (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved since there are now 10 items on the list, but what I am saying is that the bot updated the list and removed, correctly, the item which was not in the top 5. However it did not readd a new one. As I said though ATM it's been resolved. Maybe it was just a fluke.

Articles where sources are in foreign language

I see that currently the oldest nominations are Stone Age Poland, Bronze and Iron Age Poland] and Poland in Antiquity. The sources for all 3 are in Polish, except for a "special English edition" of one, but still published in Poland. Looks like we need to figure out how to handle these, as there seems to be an influx of artciles motivated by "national pride" - that phrase is not judgmental, it reflects the fact that some nations are catching up fast, which is good. The alternatives I can see for handling articles that depend on non-English sources are:

• Totally WP:AGF on the sources. In practice we often have to do this with "dead tree" books for which relevant extracts are not available online via e.g. Google Books. However in most articles there is a significant proportion of online sources, e.g. journal articles, and we can assess from these how sensibly, accurately and neutrally the editors use sources.
• Ask the relevant non-English Wikipedia to check the sources, while we handle MOS, images, coverage, structure and copy-edits.
• Ask speakers of the relevant language who are members of en.WP to check the sources, and agree with them who handles the other aspects. This won't work if our polyglots can't access the sources.
• Say "Sorry, we can't review this."

Additional suggestions of comments anyone? --Philcha (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The last option I don't think is acceptable. Perhaps one further option is to ask the relevant project (if there is one) to check the refs as reliable sources for what is claimed. The other thing to bear in mind is that Wikipedia goes completely overboard on referencing - you are supposed only to have to give refs for what might be challenged, so unless what is written appears contentious, I'd assume good faith. jimfbleak (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Jim, in this case the subject is archeology of Poland, and I've no idea what might or might not be contentious. --Philcha (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with these articles (written mainly by one editor) is that they are anachronisms. Poland, as an identifiable nation or region did not exist until the 10th century at the earliest, and so "Stone Age Poland" makes about as much sense as "Stone Age Germany", "Stone Age England" or "Stone Age Liechtenstein". There won't be non-Polish sources for the concept because it doesn't make sense from anything other than a nationalist perspective. Non-Polish sources will more likely discuss the history of germanic, celtic and slavic peoples, or (central) Europe in the Stone Age. However, using such sources to support the article is probably OR by synthesis. I suggest listing one of them (or perhaps all three) at AfD, not necessarily to delete the content, but to figure out if something more sensible can be done with it than this. Geometry guy 21:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it supposed to be a cultural-geographic region instead of a nation state though? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's already a stretch for Poland in the Early Middle Ages. How would you characterize Poland geographically or culturally in the Stone Age, as opposed to, say, Prussia? The terminology is nonsense. Geometry guy 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There are actually five articles in this series: Stone Age Poland, Bronze and Iron Age Poland, Poland in Antiquity, Poland in the Early Middle Ages (currently on hold), and Prehistory and protohistory of Poland (recently failed, and the overarching main article for this series). These five have all been failed before in a run through GAC, and they seem to be well on their way this time - both times they have been nominated as a group of five. This is just to give some history of the articles. I agree with Geometry guy's conclusion above that something needs to be done with these articles that moves them from a nationalist-view to a more balanced central European view, since Poland didn't exist in the times being discussed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just had another look at Stone Age Poland and it says nothing about the ethnicity of the Stone Age populations, or anything to link these populations to the modern one. I suppose the title creates misleading expectations and "Stone Age populations of present-day Poland" would be more accurate. My only up-front concern is that it's infeasible to check that the sources back up the statements. --Philcha (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But what was distinctive about Stone Age Poland, as opposed to say, Stone Age Ukraine or Stone Age Slovakia? Geometry guy 00:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Poland in the Early Middle Ages or Polish region in the early Middle Ages may actually be okay since it seems to have formed during this period as according the main article during the later part of the era it started to develop into a state. The rest, it seems would be better under something like Stone Age of the Western Baltic Region, Bronze and Iron Ages of the Western Baltic Region and Age of Antiquity of the Western Baltic Region.じんない 23:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

When an article is based on a few pages of a few sources, all in a foreign language, and written by one editor, as is Poland in the Early Middle Ages, I understand why no reviewer wants to make a decision. The article requires a lot of copy editing, difficult with no access to sources. I find myself avoiding articles with these characteristics. Perhaps getting the input from those who understand the language and the stature of the references would help. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re "what was distinctive about Stone Age Poland, as opposed to say, Stone Age Ukraine ...", I think it's legitimate for any "History of (country)" article to comment on ancient human habitation that may covered by archeological and paleontological evidence rather than written history or oral tradition. For example History of the United States summarises several "main" articles including Pre-Columbian, and History of England does the same for Prehistoric Britain and other more detailed articles on specific stages. In this respect they are simply following the example of the more panoramic history books about specific countries. Stone Age Poland does not make any claims that any of these prehistoric populations were genetically, lingustically or culturally related to modern or recent historic Poles - in fact it says the earliest hominines in Poland were a different species, Homo erectus.

There would be a valid objection if someone produced good evidence that the title Stone Age Poland confusingly superimposes modern national boundaries that cut across a patchwork of contemporaneous but distinct cultures that are also found in the territories of other modern countries. If such evidence is produced, it would be sensible to merge / split Stone Age Poland into articles about these cultures. However History of Poland would still need "main" article(s) to summarise the prehistory of Poland.

If no-one here has sufficient knowledge of North Central European prehistory to produce such evidence, I suggest we ask an appropriate and hopefully active Wikiproject to comment.

Then we should leave a message for the authors of the "... Poland" articles summarising the issues. --Philcha (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"There would be a valid objection..." indeed. Neither Pre-Columbian nor Prehistoric Britain impose modern national boundaries: the boundaries are those of the ocean. By contrast Stone Age Poland itself contains enough evidence that the modern national boundaries have no prehistorical meaning. Indeed it would be absurd to suggest that they did. The modern boundaries of Poland have no relevance for Homo erectus or Homo neanderthalis. Nor (in reference to the later articles) do they have any relevance for celtic culture.

It is perfectly valid to refer to discuss prehistory in History of Poland. It may even be valid to have an article on Prehistory and protohistory of Poland. It isn't valid to branch that out into anachronistic articles on concepts that make no sense. Geometry guy 22:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW I'm not sure it was right to give Prehistory and protohistory of Poland an instant fail. The two main grounds were prose quality and lack of English-language sources. We have still not resolved the English-language sources issue. Once that was resolved, it would have been better to advise the authors to seek help with copy-editing, e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members, and give them the usual week. Otherwise we risk become "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit - provided their first language is English". --Philcha (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had comprehensiveness issues also. If you read the review, there were things that were touched on in the article but not explained. One summary paragraph for three of the sub-articles I felt was not enough to comprehensively cover the time frames. Introducing the three human species but not giving what make them separate, or even mentioning the names of the various cultures that were in certain time frames I felt were issues of comprehensiveness. And I failed the article about the same time this discussion started up. If the prose and comprehensiveness issues had not been there, I would not have failed it on the sourcing. (Although I had concerns about it, and felt it only fair to mention it.) The little summary chart review had fails for prose and comprehensiveness, not a fail for sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair comments, but IMO not grounds for an instant fail, as they are probably easy to fix - especially the hominine species, as I could do one-liners on H. erectus and H. Neanderthalensis off the top, and then find refs in Google Books. --Philcha (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I firmly believe that reviewers have no obligation to put every reasonable article they review on hold. The main obligation on all reviewers is to leave a decent review. This impinges on the whole "quick fail"/"read the whole article carefully" discussion raised several times above. Failing without a hold is a perfectly reasonable reviewer response to a weak article, as long as they leave a clear review pointing out some ways in which the article fails to meet the criteria and some suggestions for improvements. I regard it as unacceptable to fail a good faith nomination of a reasonable article without a review. I also regard it as contrary to the lightweight principles of GA to require reviewers to put every reasonable article on hold. Geometry guy 23:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a message at WT:WikiProject Poland asking for help on this. Wronkiew (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Back to original Q: All options are viable (even the last one) the trick is finding which one is most relevant. Speaking of Eastern European history, reliable history works are printed in tiny press runs, and if one book of 300 printed stands on my shelf, it is quite likely missing from your university library. A wide call for "prove or fail it" will, quite likely, miss the reliable sources but find a lot of popular non-fiction, semi-fiction or just partisan fairytales. I presume this is not that what was expected. NVO (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • The way we handled this sort of thing at FAC was to request that anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged (anything that is not common knowledge, I believe?) and was sourced to a work in a foreign language had to quote the relevant portion of the text in the footnote in the original language, as well as the contributor's translation. Wrad (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you were really worried about it, you could always throw it in a translator. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish to take the opportunity to remind everyone that many comprehensive and reliable sources are not in English. Restrictions on the use of non-English sources would worsen systemic bias. GA was created for short articles and is hence a process that can, and should, counter systemic bias. Perhaps you could ask the nominator, who presumably has access to the non-English sources, to clarify any doubts you have; doing so would help you evaluate the reliability of the sources. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following this that closely, but other than prefering English sources, we should engourage all the foreign language sourcing we can. - 10:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use of image question

I cannot find a clear statement regarding the fair use of images on Wikipedia. I am reviewing Soul Food Taqueria which has images of both the front and back of the album cover, twice using copyrighted material. To me, using both front and back of the album (essentially the same style by the same artist) is an unnecessary use of the copyrighted material and that the album cover is enough to illustrate for the purposes of the article. I would appreciate any feedback. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless it has a lot of discussion of both, I would say one is enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Front cover is usually enough unless there is a valid reason.じんない 02:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

With no real discussion about the back cover in the article I would say it fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. --JD554 (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor has added to his discussion of "art work" in Soul Food Taqueria but it still does not specifically require both the front and back covers to illustrate a point, I don't think. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The front cover works just fine to illustrate the artwork discussed in the article. It would need to be something specifically about the back cover, in my opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It helps to know that someone else does not think I am being unreasonable. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Long-toed Salamander

Hi, wanted to start a GA review for this article, but went to the article talk page and discovered it has not yet been officially nominated. Is this something the nominator must do themselves, or can I turn on the process? Sasata (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the nominator forgot to put the template on the talk page, in which case I think you can do it for them. bibliomaniac15 04:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Either that or remove it and send a message to the nominator to make certain. It may have been removed there, but not here for other reasons.じんない 04:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS X

I'm currently reviewing Mac OS X, and have commented that it's too insider-oriented in both content and sources - IMO the things that matter to ordinary users are pricing, performance, reliability, security, ease of use, and avaibilit yof applications, about all of which which the article says next to nothing. The editors disagree, and there has been no real movement on this for nearly 3 weeks.

I'd be grateful if another reviewer would look over the article and let me known whether what I've said is reasonable.

PS I'm aware of other issues that I haven't raised yet, e.g. the genealogy and architecture of the Unix-based parts of OS X is unclear and the statement about the "Taligent", "Copland" and "Gershwin" projects is not fully supported by the source (mentions only "Taligent"). I saw no point in going into detail while there was an issue about the scope. --Philcha (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you asked... :-)
Judging by a fairly superficial read-through of the GA review and the article, to the degree that your comments in the review are intended to be encompassed by your one-sentence summary here, I think you're on the wrong path here. The article seems generally fine (in fact, in some respects it may have been better before the editors started trying to address your comments; specifically the Architecture section, which should probably have been improved and illustrated rather then removed) and mostly needs attention to details and fleshing out or merging of the various single-sentence top-level sections. The issues and perspectives you mention here are fair, but, in my opinion, boil down to a minor content addition and some copyediting; and not, as you appear to suggest, a significant change in overall focus. I'm also left with a feeling that you may want to examine how much of your own POV is shining through in your assessment; some of the comments gave me the impression that you're extrapolating from your experiences with Windows (and primarily as a home user) and assuming they're generally valid. In short, I suspect the reason you're uncomfortable with the focus and coverage of the article is because it does not conform with what a specifically Windows user would expect an article on Mac OS X to look like.
That's not to say the article doesn't have problems and rough spots—and isolated instances of “insider-oriented” POV—but I'm guessing the reason it's stuck is because you're arguing the bit above and refusing to get into the details.
Anyways… I hope that wasn't too much of the “though love” and that you found a second pair of eyes useful (even if they disagreed fairly significantly with you). :-) --Xover (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I will be concise: the article fails WP:JARGON (which is part of criterion 1b) in spades. Partly as a consequence, it is essentially unreadable (1a) to a large proportion of the likely readership. Geometry guy 21:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on comprehensiveness

Criterion 3 (a) requires that good articles "address the main aspects of the topic". I'm wondering i. whereabouts the threshold for "main aspect" is, and ii. whereabout the threshold for "address" is. I'm reviewing an article on a one term U.S. Senator (the subject's primary claim to notability) who was a state legislator before his Senate career. I'm generally satisfied with the comprehensiveness of the coverage of his Senate career, but his career as a state legislator is dealt with in a single sentence that includes only the dates in which he served. I'm on the fence on this, and would appreciate others' thoughts. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what the scope of the article is intended to be. If it's called something like "Senate career of John Doe", then I wouldn't be expecting to see anything other than material about that period in his life. If it's called "John Doe" on the other hand, then I'd be expecting substantially more than one sentence of biographical material beyond the account of his senate career. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The article is for the individual, but you may have misunderstood me: there's much more than one sentence about his life outside of the senate; my concern is specifically with the portion dealing with his career as state legislator, which is only one sentence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I did misunderstand you. Then my reply would be that the number of sentences isn't important, rather the importance of what isn't being said. If one sentence covers all that needs to be said, fine. Are there questions in your mind about important material you feel may be missing about his career as a legislator? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No specific questions beyond "What did he do during his six years as state legislator?" I'm not really wondering whether the article *should* include material on this; there's no doubt in my mind that it should. I'm more wondering whether the absence of such material is a reason to fail the article, given that WP:GA? is quite clear that an article doesn't need to be entirely comprehensive to be listed. If it helps, the article is Joseph Tydings. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, speaking only for myself, that looks broad enough to me. It'll be interesting to see what others think. I'd be concerned about the claim in the infobox that he fought in World War II though. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, both for your thoughts on the broadness issue and for drawing my attention to the World War II claim, which I'd missed. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Mall here, the coverage given at the moment seems to suffice. For better or for worse we generally (or I generally, back when I was reviewing more) assume that if there's nothing more said it's because there's nothing more to say. No hard in asking as part of your review comments if anything of note happened in those six years; the author may have forgotten to mention them in the article. But if there's nothing to say, I think it's OK as is. Giggy (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a related topic I wanted to raise: I have over the last six months been working through the sports person articles for GA Sweeps. One recurring issue is that many otherwise OK articles (i.e. Paul Dickov, David Beharall or Andrés Nocioni to name a few) have zero information about the person's life outside sports. I would normally consider this essential but upon consultation some time ago (and I now cannot find the discussion or remember exactly who was involved) I was advised to drop this consideration from my reviews. I still mention it, but it is no longer a cause to delist an article. I was wondering whether people felt such information was essential for a GA or peripheral and if it should be included, to what degree? (One of the better examples of such a section is, I feel, the one at Brian Urlacher).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, speaking only for myself, I would delist an article if it didn't contain information about the subject's life outside of sport, as failing 3a. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless the article was "John Doe, the Sportsplayer" it should have some relevant information. And it should only have such a title if their is a main article on that person.じんない 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Absent contrary evidence of past consensus on the question (I don't follow these things that closely), I'd agree that an article purporting to be a biographical one needs to have some information about the subject's life outside his/her specific claim to fame to pass 3 a. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SI. Giggy (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Some biographies may lack Personal life sections simply because there is little or no information available on the subject's personal life. In such cases, the lack of a Personal life section should not prevent the article from attaining GA status. The inclusion of a Personal life section in a biography of a non-public figure may cause the article to violate the BLP policy. Surely we do not want BLP-violating articles to achieve GA status? Remember, broadness is not comprehensiveness. GA was created for short articles and is hence a process that helps in countering systemic bias. I should note that I wrote Denise Phua, which achieved GA status despite having no Personal life section, and Yip Pin Xiu, a current GA nominee which also lacks a Personal life section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Both of those articles lack personal life sections, but both of them also include information extraneous to the primary claim to notability. For example, Phua's claim to notability appears to be her status as an MP, but the article includes her year of birth, educational background, managerial positions, and volunteerism (though this last might actually be on par with the MP status as a claim to notability - I can't tell). Yip Pin Xiu includes a year of birth and educational background, as well as details about her condition that might not be strictly relevant to her claim to notability. As far as I can tell, Jackyd101 is talking more about an article that covers a person's athletic career in reasonable details (statistics, career highlights, etc.) without including any basic biographical data at all (place of birth, year of birth, residence, educational background, etc.). In my view, if basic biographical information is not available for an article subject, that subject probably doesn't clear WP:N (or, if it does, doesn't clear it by enough to have a GA written about it, though I recognize that the question of whether it's possible to make a GA out of every article is not one on which there exists universal agreement). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, and I agree that a minimum level of biographical information isn't hard to come by for any truly notable sportsperson who has had some kind of professional career - they'll have appeared in sports magazines and on club websites, if nothing else. If the focus of an article can't be changed by tweaking the title, then I'd be inclined to delist and possibly even recommend that the article be merged with a club article if appropriate. EyeSerene^talk 10:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can disqualify articles on sports celebs for lack of personal info, as some are very reclusive out of the arena. E.g. Stefan Edberg in tennis and Lisa Moretti in wrestling. It certainly does not impact the subject's notability, which is generally for achievements in top-class competition.--Philcha (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Stefan Edberg article does contain personal info, such as his ownership of an investment company, his wife and children, although why that's considered to be trivia ... --Malleus Fatuorum 12:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the small amount of personal info about Edberg should be retitled "Personal life" - except for the freak injury that killed a linesman, which real trivia as it waas not a foreseeable consequence of anything Edberg did. However I think the main point remains that personal info about about sports celebs can be miniscule or missing - e.g in the case of Ellsworth Vines you'll miss personal info in the NY Times obit if you blink at the wrong time. Until the 1980s the kind of books and articles we regard as WP:RS were very discreet about personal details. --Philcha (talk) 12:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is disrespectful to have the death of the linesman in a section named Trivia in any case. But to return to the question, if there is no biographical material then the article cannot be considered to have covered the main topics of its subject, and so fails criterion 3. Doesn't make it not a "good" article, simply means that it doesn't meet the GA criteria and so can't be listed as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) To note, my question was not about a "Personal Life" section specifically, but rather the inclusion of personal information in the article, whether in its own section or not. I agree that such information is probably available for all contemporary sports personalities and most former ones, although I would also add that a personality who is notable for their reticence is likely to have reliable sources documenting said reticence, which can form a paragraph of its own. Given the trend of this discussion, I will be returning to re-review the articles that I passed without any personal information in the near future. A related issue however is the question of how much information is required. For example, Emile Heskey has appeared in the media outside his sporting capacity (although not a huge amount) and yet the section on this in his article is only the barest minimum. Another example of this (although from a lower profile footballer) is Clayton Donaldson. How much do people think is necessary? Personally I think that at least one properly developed paragraph is a mimimum, but perhaps less is acceptable.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't call it a biography article if it doesn't cover the subject's life with some degree of completeness. Obviously we aren't looking for FA standards, but if relevant information can be sourced, it really ought to be included (and if not, perhaps as you suggest there's something to be written about why not). Personally I tend to drop or mitigate objections at GA-level if a good-faith effort has been made to find sourced info on something that I think ought to exist, even if it's drawn a blank, but that wouldn't apply where an article remains obviously incomplete or unbalanced, and tends to be for minor rather than major omissions. Not every article is capable of becoming a GA; for the Heskey article I find the almost complete lack of personal information more concerning than the passing mention of his non-sporting related activities, though that, too, is an issue. If the article was entitled "Emile Heskey's footballing career", it would more accurately reflect the content (and open a whole new can of worms!) EyeSerene^talk 21:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, on the basis of the discussion here, I will be rereviewing the articles that I passed without adequate personal life information. I will begin by posting a warning and this instruction guide on the talk page of each (if anyone has any suggestions or improvements for the guide please let me know, and feel free to use any bits of it you like for your own reviews). If after seven days there has been no improvement then I will begin a formal individual GA reassessment and notify the relevant wikiproject and/or contributors. If no work happens after seven days then the article will be delisted. Any one contesting this is quite welcome to take the article to GAR. Sound fair?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)You have to take each article on its own merits; however, the good article criteria particular 3a says
"Broad in its coverage:
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"
Where the note states: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics."
To me, that does not say a biography of someone who is very rarely in the public eye outside of his/her main field, needs to go into much detail at all. Some detail is certainly preferable and not to be discouraged, but I wouldn't be demanding much more than that. Peanut4 (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I would encourage the option of page moves (renaming the article) rather than failing as a biography. The broadness of an article is determined by its title. If reliable sources only exist to document one aspect of a person's life, it is better for the encyclopedia to have a good quality, reliably sourced article on that aspect, rather than an attempt at a full biography with less than stellar sources. This is a very serious and topical issue, as biographies can be libelous and can damage real peoples lives. See WP:BLP. Geometry guy 23:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been articles on athletes that have gotten through FAC with basically no personal life, because that person lived in a age before "personal lives" and did not have anything remarkable in his personal life to note. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't think the responses of a) I can't find sources and b) there is nothing to note really stand up at GA (and I certainly think there is no excuse at FA). An article I wrote (John Capper) recently failed a GAN from Matisse because "He does not come to life as an individual. There is not enough information about him other than a chronology of his career". Assuming this to be the standard (and I'm not complaining, just comparing), then why should articles about sports people pass without information about them as individuals?

I'm also reluctant to advocate moving articles simply because aspects of them aren't good enough: articles about a particular aspect of a person's life should only be employed if the parent article is too big, not as a convenience to prevent the delisting of Good Articles.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Perhaps you want it reevaluated. The FA article I was thinking of was Bob Meusel. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not a challenge on that particular article, I'm not trying to make a point (I'd have gone to GAR for that), I'm just trying to establish where the line is and what crosses it. As for Meusel, I think that that amount of information is OK for GA, but that it would be very lucky to pass FAC at current standards. As it is, I have dropped notifications at Paul Dickov, David Beharall, Mark Hammett and Andrés Nocioni which all have 0 personal information. Those with inadequate information I will continue to consider in the context of this discussion.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the gravity of my previous comment has not yet been taken on board. Articles should not be moved for convenience, nor should we stop challenging nominators to find more and better sources. However, like everything else on Wikipedia, GAN can only justify its existence if, overall, it improves the encyclopedia. Encouraging wiki-biographers to add dubiously sourced material about the personal lives of well known living persons most definitely does not improve the encyclopedia. I hope everyone can agree on that. Geometry guy 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've no doubt that everyone does agree that encouraging wiki-biographers to add dubiously source material is of no benefit either to the article or to the encyclopedia. But that's not what I understood was being discussed here. I too share Jackyd101's reservations about renaming just to creep under the 3a bar. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I do understand your comment, but I think you are assuming something that hasn't been suggested: no one has indicated that anything other than reliable sources should be used to back up this material. In fact I said in my proposed instruction guide that reliable sources are a must. I think that "Encouraging wiki-biographers to add dubiously sourced material about the personal lives of well known living persons" most definitely does improve the encyclopedia. --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That is well and good when nominators share our enthusiasm for improving the encyclopedia, as opposed to, say, getting more GAs under their belt for other reasons. Reliable sourcing is not a binary issue: there isn't a clear line between reliability and unreliability, judgment is needed. For BLPs it would be much better if this project encouraged the very best sources, at the expense of less information. I don't have a problem with YM's nominations of articles which refer to a person's contribution to a particular event. What is unencylopedic about that? Why do we have to describe people only in biography format? Why can't we have GAs that discuss the contribution of person X to Y? Geometry guy 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We do have GAs that discuss the contribution of person X to Y - some chess player GAs and other that have not yet reached GA have an "Influence on the game" section.

Chess promotion apart, Geometry guy is right - "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" makes influences on and influences of the subject more important than private lives, unless these became causes celebres (to put it politely) or influenced the career that made the subject notable. For example many chess enthusiasts know how Mikhail Botvinnik first got noticed, who his major rivals were at various stages, who his pupils were, his ideas on preparation for important chess contests, his pupils - but it's pretty difficult to find the name of his wife. Apart from Posh 'n Becks, footballers' wives seldom make much impact. Half the times you only read about celebs' families in the celebs' obituaries. --Philcha (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent)I was brought to this discussion after it came up at Talk:Arjen Robben. If personal life sections are to become mandatory for sports figures than it will severely limit the amount of biographical articles I bring to GAN. The very reason I would choose GAN over FAC is that there is some detail missing which prevents it meeting the criterion it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context, but does not stop it from [[[WP:WIAGA|address[ing] the main aspects of the topic]]. For example, I own the majority of books which mention Sam Cowan. If the information isn't in the article it has probably never been published. Ken Barnes manages to go through the entirety of his 190 page autobiography without mentioning his wife's name once. Frequently the only sources for such things are tabloid scandal sheets, the antithesis of the type of sourcing we want to encourage. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Having just seen the notification for Paul Dickov, this brings up a case in point. Dickov scored the most important goal of his career when Vince Bartram was the opposing goalkeeper. The poignant part is that Dickov was the best man at Bartram's wedding. When I wrote the article I was aware of this, but couldn't find a reliable source. Since I now live somewhere where I can access Newsbank using my library card (but didn't then), I just ran a search. On this occasion we're lucky. Three publications mention it, one of which is The Guardian. The other two are The Sun and the News of the World. Those two I wouldn't touch with a bargepole from a WP:RS point of view. But most of the time it is that type of publication that tends to be the one to delve into personal lives. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work on that, but it raises a question: tabloids are subject to the same libel laws as broadsheets, so in theory at least, their news (if not their tone or writing style) does qualify under WP:RS. We don't have a blanket ban on those sources, so perhaps we just have to exercise caution when using them?--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The red tops in particular deliberately sail very close to the wind, careful use of the word "allegedly" a favourite. Put it this way: Yesterday the front page headline on the Sun was "Robinho Rape Arrest". The player had been bailed by police in connection with an investigation into a sexual assault. Other papers reported the same story, but were far more reserved in the way they reported it. Today, though a search of their website brings 51 results for "Robinho" from 2009, yesterday's article is mysteriously not among them. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but surely the role of Wikipedia as a tertiary source is to distill the relevant information from the news article, just as with a broadsheet - our role is not to determine which information from commercially released newspapers or journals is newsworthy or reliable, but to report what others considered to be newsworthy and the manner in which they reported it. Thus allegedy is appropriate in many instances: for an example, see Tony Parker - he was accused of having an affair with a model in the tabloid press, the story ran for several weeks and later turned out to be a hoax - it generated a fairly high level of media interest and therefore is important enough to include in the article, in spite of its lack of relevance to his sporting career and in spite of the totally invented nature of the story (in fact the fraudulent nature of the story makes it even more important that wikipedia reports it accurately to conform with BLP). Wikipedia is fast becoming many people's first choice for biographical information on "celebrities" and the Parker story, like many others, will attract a large number of viewers to the page who are looking for information unrelated to the subject's sporting career. For information such as this, often the only sources available come from the tabloid media and yet that doesn't mean that the information is not relevant to the article or cannot be reliably sourced - it just means that we as editors must take care in the manner in which we phrase and source the information in the article in question.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the correct interpretation of WP:BLP. As an encyclopedia, we aren't competent to decide what is and isn't 'true', but we have policies to guide our use of what reliably-sourced information we do find. I share Oldelpaso's opinion of tabloid newspapers, but think that as long as they're used responsibly, they can be a valuable resource. WP:RS specifies the source should be "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", which is different to completely reliable in all things. EyeSerene^talk 13:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If something is of note, then it ought to be documented in sources whose reliability is not suspect. We should endeavour to use the highest quality sources, doubly so for biographies of living people. To rely on sources are not regarded as trustworthy or authoritative is to hinder that goal. If something can only be sourced to publications with poor reputations for reliability, then my interpretation of WP:RS is that they should not be included at all - "if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" surely applies. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's broadly true, of course, but we're in a bit of a grey area. I think part of the problem is that while many things are of note, they aren't documented in the highest-quality sources because they aren't of note to those sources. We wouldn't, for example, expect to find personal information about a footballer in a peer-reviewed academic journal or even necessarily a quality broadsheet - the audience for that information, by and large, is the readership of the tabloid newspaper, so that's where we'd look. I completely agree that such sources must be handled carefully, but that doesn't mean they have no value at all. EyeSerene^talk 14:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

GA guides

We've all grumbled about the poor state of some nominations. While there is a decent Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles guide, there's no simple guide to writing GAs for editors who are not familiar with the details of the relevant policies, etc. Would it be a good idea to write a relatively simple guide, possibly with sub-pages for aspects that are more complex or more topic-specific (e.g. the discussion about breadth of coverage, especially in bios), and then feature it prominently in the "How to nominate" section of WP:GAN and possibly link to it in Wikipedia:Good article criteria? I know the relevant policies etc. would take precedence, but I think a shorter, common-sense outline would suffice for at least at least 95% of the content in articles we review. I have a few thoughts on the contents, and could draft a guide in my sandbox for other reviewers to comment on.

BTW we had a discussion recenty about poor reviews. Would it be useful to add to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles something like "It's a bad idea to review an article for GA status if you have not already produced or improved at least two articles that have then passed GA reviews"? --Philcha (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For both editors and new reviewers I suggest it would also be helpful to provide a list / category of fairly recent GA passes by sub-topic in the nominations list, as some people learn more easily by example than from guides and rule-books. Does anyone know how this could be automated? --Philcha (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've produced the beginnings of such a guide at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Producing a Good Article. Please comment at User talk:Philcha/Sandbox/Producing a Good Article. --Philcha (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We do already have Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles, which is largely written by Nehrams. I also found User:Jacklee/Writing good articles. But the more the merrier! Geometry guy 20:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! I especially like User:Jacklee/Writing good articles, because I think a light, almost chatty style will be more helpful to new(ish) editors. The problem with Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles is that, although its content is good, its title suggests yet another dreary piece of WP bureaucracy, and the Guide itself contains too many policy acronyms - I don't think I've ever read a policy or guideline all the way through, and I've produced a reasonable number of GAs in the last 8 months or so. Whichever version we use:

• Its title must imply "this is what to do before nominating" - why, if that's not obvious to a new(ish) editor.
• Tthe way it is presented in the "How to nominate" box of WP:GAN must also give this impression.
• Its style should be light and easy.
• It should include tips and tools (e.g the link checker) as well as rules.
• It should cover it all in one page, with the possible exception of breadth of coverage, so that the TOC is a good summary and readers don't lose the plot while waiting for a linked page to load.

Hopefully that will lead to better average quality of nominated articles, reviews that make a more positive impression, and more people willing to review.

PS to make it work, it needs a commitment from the GA project to keep it up to date - some parts of User:Jacklee/Writing good articles are visibly out of date. --Philcha (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW has anyone any ideas on how to automate presentation of a list of recent GAs in each topic area, so that readers can see examples that meet the current interpretation(s) of the current criteria? --Philcha (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good idea, as I frequently look for examples of articles in a certain area (like albums, or films etc.) so I know what is supposed to be in such an article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I do this too. Whitehorse1 00:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think warning potential reviewers against reviewing if they have not already been a key contributor to multiple articles that have then passed GA reviews is a good idea. I understand what you mean in terms of someone understanding the process if they've experienced it from the other side though. Willingness to read, and ability to understand, the policies, guidelines & criteria in a potential reviewer though is what's crucial.

You make a great point about many learning more easily by example, Philcha. Specimen or model reviews, selected by others, might better guarantee quality than automated selection? Whitehorse1 00:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For model reviews I think you're right, they have to be hand-selected. Unfortunately model went so dormant it's been archived, although it was only opened around 12 Jan 2008. To make that work I think we'd need to:

• Get a decent range of reviews - different types of subject; easy passes and those were harder work; close "fail"s; and maybe some that weren't so close, although the reviewees might not be happy about that, and perhaps we should ask if they are willing for the reviews to be listed.
• Make them easy to access, e.g. links to them at the top and bottom of Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles.
• Review the list if standards change - which has happened, my impression is that many FAs promoted before 2007 would struggle to pass GA reviews now.

The need to keep "model" lists up to date is one of the reasons why I suggested automating the selection of model GAs. The other main one is that we need one or two from each sub-topic because e.g. a science GA looks very different from a sports GA, in fact there are wide differences within sub-topics.

The idea of warning against reviewing if they have not already been a key contributor to multiple articles that have then passed GA reviews came up in recent discussions about poor quality reviews (Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_11#Rule_to_make_only_established_editors_review_for_GA_status.3F and Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_11#Criticism.2C_not_review). I think a would-be reviwer should first have been on the "receiving" at 2-3 articles which passed. It's how I got into GA reviewing - maybe I was lucky, but my first 3 experiences of "receiving" GS reviews were positive. --Philcha (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

For myself at least I wouldn't qualify as a reviewer under those rules. Whether or not that's a bad thing is, I guess, quite another matter! ;) –Whitehorse1 11:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably jumping off on a slight tangent, but it's always struck me as a little strange that nominators aren't asked to give feedback on the reviews of their articles, perhaps on a scale of 1–10, for instance. Who decides what is a good review? Me? You? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Osteitis fibrosa cystica

This article was recently promoted to GA by User:Cssiitcic. Here are his comments on the article Talk:Osteitis fibrosa cystica/GA1. I however fell that it still multiple issues to be addressed. It is still not a good overview. Maybe I am just being to hard on the editors but... If someone else could take a look I would appreciate it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean comments on the article, not the review. Unlike you I'm no medic, so I'll assume the medical coverage, content and refs are OK. From the exposition point of view:

• I'd want a brief explanation of why hyperparathyroidism causes OFC and why the article is so confident that hyperparathyroidism is the cause.
• "The addition of weight loss, appetite loss, vomiting, polyuria, and polydipsia to the aforementioned symptoms may indicate that OFC is the result of parathyroid carcinoma" is ungainly. I'd prefer e.g. "If the patient also suffers from ..., the underlying cause may be parathyroid carcinoma."
• "osteoclasts", "polyuria" and "polydipsia" can easily be explained at their first use
• A medical question - is parathyroid carcinoma a cause of hyperparathyroidism? If not, then hyperparathyroidism is not the cause of OFC.
• "serum calcium levels higher than usual" needs explanation - in e.g. pop science "serum" often refers to antidotes.
• I'd probably not ask for an inline explanation of "palpable" as the common use is close enough to the medical.
• "virtually nonexistent in patients with OFC with a different origin" - 2 x "with", suggest ""virtually nonexistent in patients whose OFC has a different cause"
• The parathyroid carcinoma eventually explains that the cancer is a cause of hyperparathyroidism - see my comment above. I suggest the carcinoma→hyperparathyroidism should be earlier, poss 2nd sentence of para.
• I don't get the significance of "Muscles in patients afflicted with OFC generally appear unaffected or "bulked up" instead of diminishing in mass". does thisentence actually explain anything?

Thats the first 25-30% of the article. I don't think I need to go on much longer. If the medical aspects, including scope of coverage, are OK, this has all the ingredients of a GA but is not quite baked. OTOH I would not quick-fail, as the issues all look easy to handle and fixable within a week. --Philcha (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Have added a number of my concern about this article to its talk page. Talk:Osteitis_fibrosa_cystica#Issues_with_this_article The medicine is a little confusing. After reading it twice I am left with many unanswered questions. I posted a few concerns earlier on epidemiology. Another big concerns is defining the boundary between OFC and Parathyroid problems. But there are many others.

The reviewer said many good pictures. There are two pictures and neither one is of the condition discussed. No discussion of histology or fine needle aspiration.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Doc James, if the medical aspects are so flawed, I suggest you post your concerns on the article's Talk page, add that they are serious enough to warrant a prompt GAR, and draw the reviewer's attention to this. I can't speak for the medical aspects, but the presentation of the part I looked over (25-30%) was IMO not GA-standard. So if you get serious resistance, I'll back you up, just give me call. BTW I notice User:Cssiitcic is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology, so it might be advisable to get a 2nd opinion on the medical aspects. I expect you can think of someone, but if not give me call, as I think I know someone who can point in the right direction(s). --Philcha (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There has been a plethora of posts on this incident in various places (see here; it's complicated slightly by the fact that it's linked to an educational assignment). However, I think we've reached a workable solution; I've delisted the article and, since the article writer has indicated they are willing to to continue working, will be conducting a full review. I've also left a note for the original reviewer. Thank you all for your advice and assistance in maintaining the quality of our assessment process. EyeSerene^talk 09:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Theses as sources

Is there a consensus about using one's own MSc or PhD thesis as a source of information? Does this conflict with the no original research rule? Couldn't find anything specific in the MOS, and would like to have it clarified. Thanks Sasata (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with it, as long as it's done well, and doesn't look like self-promotion. But, please see WP:COI, which discusses conflicts of interest. But theses and dissertations don't explicitly violate WP:RS or WP:NOR, since they have been previously published, so that's fine. WP:NOR specifically exists to prevent people from using Wikipedia as the primary publishing venue for something that hasn't been published anywhere else.

As a general rule of thumb, if we're just talking about a 1-2 references in an article, it's probably ok; but if the entire article cites some guy's thesis, it's probably a violation of WP:COI. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed at WP:RSN about a month ago. A PhD thesis is probably OK provided it avoids WP:COI, as PhD theses are generally reviwed by exteranl examiners. With Masters' theses, it varies - the review may be exteranl or internal, so in general they are not wonderful sources. --Philcha (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If one has written a thesis in an area of science than it should be well referred. These references may be preferable.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You spell like a doctor (... just kidding, my wife is one, so I have 1st hand experience). I okayed (GA review) the nominator's use of his MSc thesis as source material. Thanks all for your input. Sasata (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Any article can become a GA

From what I have seen, GA can be the "last step" for an article in which very little information is available; any article can become a GA. Is this true? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If it passes all the GA criterion then yes and if it doesn't no. That simple. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

and thinking about it that difficult as well. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the GA criteria, shall we: A good article is—

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

   (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

   (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio.

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I'm only bringing this here because Maurice Kouandete was failed recently, citing the lack of personal life. Should I resubmit? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Queston on comprehensive above for more discussion on something similar. The main point is GAC 3a. Peanut4 (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That was by no means the only reason given by the reviewer for the article not being listed. I've had a look through both the article and the review, and I agree with the comments made by your reviewer. I would not recommend resubmitting at GAN until the outstanding comments are addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but I plan to adress thoss issues shortly. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Notability (fiction)

Good article regulars may be interested in the above proposed guideline, particularly the following segment: "Although an article with no independent sources may meet the minimum threshold to avoid deletion, independent sourcing is necessary to reach good article status. Articles that resist good-faith efforts to improve them to good article status, including the search for independent sources, are often merged into other articles."

Discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Good_article_status. Geometry guy 14:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd looked at that, and by the time I got halfway down the debate was thoroughly confused :P As far as I could tell the proposed change will have no impact on how we assess such articles (it seems to relate mainly to the notability of subtopics of fictional subjects), but I'm happy to be corrected. EyeSerene^talk 15:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The debate was thoroughly confused because the editors involved are defending entrenched positions, or a less than transparent compromise.

I think this sets a poor precedent. The guideline proposes that articles without independent sourcing might meet the new notability guidelines, but that that independent sourcing is required for GA status. That essentially creates a new class of articles which are not eligible for GA status, in contradiction to WP:WIAGA, which says nothing about independent sourcing. In support of the work done by reviewers here, I go out of my way to stress that WikiProject criteria are not part of the GA criteria. The latter already apply pressure on reviewers. We don't want guidelines to start making implicit or explicit assertions about the GA criteria as well. Particularly if, as in this case, GA is completely irrelevant. Geometry guy 23:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just playing Devil's advocate

I've expressed my view on the GAN backlog elsewhere, which is that by and large I don't see it as anything to get too excited about. But I've been wondering. I also occasionally hang around at FAC, where there's also a backlog and a shortage of willing reviewers. A frequent suggestion to dealing with that problem is for reviewers to be quicker to lodge an oppose to the article's promotion.

A great deal of GA reviewer time is spent in fixing up articles during the review itself. At one extreme, we could eliminate the backlog overnight by simply looking at each article in turn and assessing whether or not it meets the GA criteria, writing a list of its shortcomings if it doesn't, and moving on to the next. At the other extreme we could extend the backlog asymptotically to infinity by spending as much time as it takes to get each and every GAN listed.

Occupying the middle ground makes it inevitable that there will be a backlog, so should we be encouraging reviewers not to spend so much time on each review during periods of high backlog? Answers on a postcard please. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Postcard answer - No, we should not encourage reviewers to spend less time on each review relative to what they currently spend.

Longer answer - Each reviewer spends different amounts of time reviewing articles, and different articles require different amounts of time to review. It is necessary to walk the "middle ground", as Malleus puts it, because fails without hold are not always the answer, but neither is spending months attempting to help a nominator fix up an article that needs serious work. Each article should be addressed on its own merits, and each reviewer must decide how much time they are willing to give to an article. I would agree that backlog is not something to get too excited about - as there become fewer subjects that don't already have an article on WP, there will be (or should be) more of a focus on improving existing articles. Because GAN is a major spot for bringing articles after they have been improved, that will necessarily increase the amount of articles going through the process. Not a huge deal, just something that nominators need to be willing to deal with (they can always help out by reviewing a few, as well). I know, I'm getting into WP:TLDR territory, so I'll shut up now and go review a few articles :) Dana boomer (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be possible to address this with a variation on open review. Suppose that instead of the first reviewer being automatically the lead reviewer who decides whether to list or not (as is the case right now), reviewers could leave comments on a GAN subpage without undertaking to be the decision-maker. Then a nomination might acquire useful comments sooner. It would still need to have a full review by someone willing to make the decision, but comments from other reviewers would be encouraged, might motivate the nominator, and might help the eventual lead reviewer provide a good review and reach a good decision. Geometry guy 22:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've only done 42 reviews and only two of these had a second (or more) reviewer(s) providing a contribution. In my experience I don't see this concept of multiple reviewers commenting on a GAN happening.Pyrotec (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I've certainly looked at more than a few GANs and thought I'd like to leave a comment, but I didn't want to be the lead reviewer. I haven't always remembered to go back to them once the review has been opened though. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(To original point) I think it totally depends on the review, to be honest because there is no model GA review. If there is a huge backlog and a nomination isn't up to scratch, then a reviewer could give a short review to start with listing an array of ways an article can be improved. It could simply be failed or placed on hold with this list in place with a promise of a better review if those points are addressed. If they are addressed then a fuller review would be quicker and easier, if they are not addressed, the article could be failed, without the need for a long review. I hope that makes sense! Peanut4 (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes complete sense, Peanut4, and I have done this with several reviews. Basically, if the article is not quite deficient enough to merit a fail-without-hold, but there are still significant problems, I'll list four or five of the most pressing issues. If these are resolved, I'll continue the review. If a week goes by with little or no action on the part of the nominator, the article gets failed. That way, I don't have to spend the time on a full review for a nominator that's no longer interested, and at the same time have the option of going back and adding more comments if it appears that the nominator is willing to invest some effort in the process. Dana boomer (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is excellent practice, and the kind of advice that needs to be inform our guidelines on reviewing good articles. Geometry guy 01:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if we disagree on whether this will happen, I don't see any reason not to encourage it. Geometry guy 23:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum did provide some useful and welcome second comments on the review page of one of the GANs that I was reviewing, but I think I semi-ignored them, or didn't act on them fully. Perhaps I should have kept quiet about the last bit.Pyrotec (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The point of open review is to make clear that one editor always makes the decision. They can take into account other information or not, as they choose. I have sometimes not acted on Malleus' good advice myself, but it was still better to have that advice, so that I could take it or not according to my opinion. In cases that I didn't, I might later realise he was right, or he might realise he was wrong, or neither. But at GAN, Pyrotec, when you are the lead reviewer, to list or fail is your call. Geometry guy 23:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As Geometry guy says. I'm quite accustomed to having my opinions ignored. I not infrequently ignore the opinions of others myself. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a limit to how many noms you have?

No offense to this user, but User:YellowMonkey has 20 noms in the sports and recreation section. In addition, to this being a lot of noms, it contributes to the huge 60+ backlog. The users also should help in decreasing the backlog if he wants to have those many noms. I'm just saying.--TRUCO 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no such limit currently. There has been some discussion as to whether such a limit might be desirable, but none has yet been imposed. I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, and I try to keep my ratio of articles submitted to article reviewed right around one. Some users, though - no idea whether this applies to YM or not - may not be comfortable reviewing articles, as reviewing good articles requires a different competence than writing them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

There's currently no limit, but it is generally encouraged to review other nominations if you list one (or 20) here. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen YellowMonkey review articles, it's not something I think he's shy about doing, but he does have other things to do. If someone feels there time is better spent writing articles than checking other peoples', I think that's fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against someone writing articles, I have 2 noms up there, but I reviewed 3 in exchange. Its fair to review to get a review IMO. I just think that 20, especially almost back-to-back is a bit overwhelming.--TRUCO 22:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a quid pro quo. Our aim here is to improve the quality of the encylopedia. Why should YellowMonkey be slowed down just because we can't keep up? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to play Devil's Advocate…I think the OP was suggesting mass noms were contributory to why we might not be able to keep up. ;) Whitehorse1 00:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Like Sarcasticidealist comments others have thought this is something for discussion too. The immediate last archive of this page has something on this too —brought up by an pretty experienced reviewer I believe. Wikipedia is not a sprint. I can see how a cap on the amount of nominations (# of noms per editor) at one time, say a maximum of 3, is reasonable.

Reviewers place articles on hold for a short period so article problems can be fixed. This is so when they are fixed, and no new problems are introduced, they can pass the article. With a large amount of concurrent nominations an editor's time and attention is spread more thinly; even allowing for case multiple noms might not all be taken by reviewers at the same time this is valid; this means less time for addressing any concerns raised by each reviewer for each nominated article. Whitehorse1 00:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That an editor has twenty nominations suggests he is a prolific contributor of quality content and should be encouraged to write even more. But after closely scrutinising YellowMonkey's nominations, I am rather concerned. Six of his nominations are about the 1948 Ashes series and fourteen are entitled "X with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948". Would reviewers want to review so many articles with excessive details about a minor sporting event? Floods of such articles just show how severe the systemic bias of Wikipedia is. Perhaps there should be limits on nominating many similar and excessively trivial articles? While I wish to applaud YellowMonkey for writing so many articles about cricket, I wish he (and others) would do more to counter systemic bias by writing about, for example, Singaporean historical sites and politicians. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tangentially, I clicked through and glanced at your talk page and something there led me to Peer Review. It (i.e. WP:REVIEW) has a note in bold type advising noms:

Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total open requests per editor. ...[A]nd 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review or unsuccessful FAC., and a further info link that explains: Since PR is supposed to be an interactive process, having more than four open PR requests seems counterproductive. ... The basic idea is that editors should look carefully at feedback from any review process, and make the needed changes before asking for a peer review.

It suggests to me how established the understanding is that limited or finite resources exist and, to effectively make those available for everyone, some limits have to be placed to facilitate that. As someone said, aiming to be about the "us and the we" instead of the "I and the me". It does look like limits to ga noms wouldn't be a paradigm shift from the setup that wiki contributors will experience and are used to onsite.  –Whitehorse1 11:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 11#Limiting nominations?. Apterygial 11:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Piped link 'immediate last archive' posted a couple of paragraphs up. *g*  –Whitehorse1 11:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. So you did. But what that thread shows is that a policy of limited noms would be impossible to implement: the opposition from some sections of the GA community would be insurmountable. While I was originally for it, it is important to recognise the effect that such a policy could have on the output of quality articles. Apterygial 11:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly didn't get that from the debate there. Strong support — near unanimous — for some sort of cap, with User:TonyTheTiger the only opposed; User:Geometry guy said later in the thread he felt a cap would have limited impact too though.

I did quite like your your idea of further noms if you review a block, User:Apterygial. Interesting.

I found it interesting some of the 5 editors User:Geometry guy points out would be affected are the same names seen in the discussion that led to Peer Review introducing limits.  –Whitehorse1 11:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

We write and review subjects we care about and hopefully know something about. If all the nominations are of high quality than I do not see what the concern would be? If some or many are of questionable quality than that is another issue. I consider all sports game outcomes trivia, but that is just me. :-) Looked at some of the pages and all I can says is WOW. Dedicated. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it's frustrating for the would-be-nominator who eagerly, with some trepidation, puts up the article they've lavished attention on… Only for it to languish in the queue for ages because of en masse noms from a small cadre of editors.

Time and again the sentiment there is a problem is brought up, like here; or, this current FAC submission:
(quote) Mother's Milk is the fourth studio album by alternative rock band Red Hot Chili Peppers. This is a project I have been intending to work on since the last Chili Peppers' album, One Hot Minute, was completed and subsequently Featured in November 2007. … I elected not to nominate this article for potential GA status as I feel that process has become a useless outlet of mere waiting; it is a test not of the article's quality but of it's contributor(s)' patience. (unquote)
–Whitehorse1 12:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if more editors took that view then the backlog problem would be eliminated, at least at GAN anyway, although taking articles which are clearly not ready for GA, much less FA, will not do much for queue at that review process. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There's always the possibility of that. My latest FA creation skipped right over the GA process completely. (I'd still be waiting for a review most likely based on the dates in the backlog) Wizardman 15:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem though is a severe lack of willing reviewers, both at GAN and at FAC. Pushing the problem onto FAC solves nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Like a user pointed out above, it really drags reviewers away to review 20 noms of the same type of articles.--TRUCO 17:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you've touched on something important. What isn't being considered in this wringing of hands and clenching of teeth over the size of GAN's backlog is that the waiting time is not uniform across topics, and some are severely backlogged because of an apparent lack of reviewer interest, others get picked up almost instantly. I can't remember ever having to wait much more than a week or so for a review, for instance. We don't have the right statistics available either. So the queue size is n? So what? What's the median waiting time for a review to begin? Standard deviation? Variation across topic categories? That there's a bottleneck with pop culture topics, for instance, is not something that I'm ever likely to be concerned about. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the need is not for more reviewers per se, but for more reviewers in categories x, y or z? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's because of the rich inner light that shines through in your eyes, Malleus. People flock to it. Stats wise I don't know of any of that either. The only statistical data I've seen is GAN/R, the template, and GA/S. – Whitehorse1 13:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Malleus has centered the point with his comment that the number of articles at GAN is irrelevant. What matters to nominators is how long is the wait. That will depend on the article. For instance several of YM's articles have been at GAN for some time, presumably because such specific topics haven't attracted reviewer attention. However, to those who think YM is not helping the encyclopedia with these specific, but well polished nominations, please address your concerns via User talk, not WT:GAN. I'm not aware of any evidence that such nominations cause delays to others in the same area: GAN is not a queue. Indeed, from a reviewer perspective, having more articles at GAN is a good thing, because it provides a greater selection of articles to review. These particular articles have evidently not been selected yet!

Yes, we need more reviewers, but, as I have pointed out several times, reviewer numbers are growing steadily: GAN is rather successful. If we want to reduce nominations, I agree with Philcha that the priority is to educate nominators in GA expectations so that the articles nominated here are close to meeting the criteria and we spend less time on articles needing significant work. However, and this I must stress, this does not involve regulating nominations or skipping reviews of good faith nominations. Like all volunteer work here, GAN reviewing is a service to the community, and we will only continue to grow if we build on the spirit to give every article we review the best service we can. That is how we encourage nominators to become new reviewers. Geometry guy 20:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed and passed two of Yellow Monkey's GA noms. They were the two easiest GA I've done. Quick, easy wins. I'd be quite happy to speed through the others in order to reduce the list. My view on this is that it's not the amount of noms that hold us up, but the quality of the noms, and the attitude of the nominators. Some nominators seem to feel that we will finish off an article that doesn't quite make GA. I'm happy to make minor corrections, and then make suggestions for improvements, but feel that if there is substantial work required, and the nominators are not doing the work, then the noms should be delisted. Arguments from nominators isn't helpful either - it is very demotivating. A nominater should be able to challenge views, and to have their concerns addressed, but no more than that. The process is light enough that a nominator can resubmit their article again if it is rejected. We are not a court of law, and quibbling over disagreements is wearisome and time-consuming. I'd take 20 noms of the quality of Yellow Monkey's articles, than 1 nom which fails on several borderline aspects which have to be explained in detail and then defended against a nominator who doesn't agree. SilkTork *^YES! 13:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. Some articles can be bloody hard work, but others can be a breeze. I suspect that those nominators with a reputation for quality work don't usually have too long a wait at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Geometry guy. If I may I'd like to take each of your points in turn. On your edit summary comment "Is there a limit to how many times this thread crops up?", my view is that this does keep cropping up says something; a dismissive or ostrich-syndrome approach could well be a mistake. Asking questions can cause us to re-examine an issue and find where improvements can be made. Some things bear repeating. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment "need to encourage more nominators to review". With respect to "Number of articles at GAN is irrelevant", I don't wish to be contrary…but no. On the comment "indeed it provides reviewers with more choice", the opposite seems surely true: Bulk nominations tend to be concentrated on a single or narrow topic area, which gives reviewers a limited topic range to choose from.

"However, to those who think YM is not helping the encyclopedia with these specific, but well polished nominations, please address your concerns via User talk, not WT:GAN." Please Don't. Nobody but nobody has said YM or any other user is harming the encyclopedia with adding content on their topics of interest, nor has anybody said any such user is sabotaging the encyclopedia, or GA, through making use of the GA process. Rather, all community members can help ensure the GA project can manage its backlog and turnover effectively. We have seen what happens to project areas that become overwhelmed — they are extinguished: LoCE.

"Malleus has centered the point with his comment that the number of articles at GAN is irrelevant." I didn't see him say that; I saw he said something about the size of the backlog, but I didn't see he said that.

For instance several of YM's articles have been at GAN for some time, presumably because such specific topics haven't attracted reviewer attention. My take on this is some articles take longer to be picked up for review for, well, various reasons — most commonly complexity of subject. I think there's a sharp contrast between an isolated lengthy science-oriented article, which could daunt somebody without a strong grasp in science (not essential for reviewing that, but certainly doesn't hurt), and as someone pointed out above a long list of noms from the same nominator, on the same general topic, at the same time.

"Yes, we need more reviewers, but, as I have pointed out several times, reviewer numbers are growing steadily…" I couldn't say whether that's accurate; others have commented most reviewers don't quickly go onto review another, but review one or two and simply move on. I inferred from the graph you linked above that nominations consistently exceed demand; still, not my area of expertise.

I'm not aware of any evidence that such nominations cause delays to others in the same area: GAN is not a queue.
It has a queue.
Well, yes, there is no quantitative 'evidence' I can hand to you. I do, however, find the backlog usually hovers around the 300 mark. (I commend those that take part in backlog elimination drives.) Taking older nominations though, while not obligatory, is strongly encouraged. WP:GAN has: "It may take several weeks for your nomination to be reviewed, as this page often has a large backlog." and "nominations towards the tops of the lists are older, and should be given higher priority." As others have pointed out: it is not fair to other nominators who have to wait for another person to get 10 articles reviewed before they can get one reviewed.

All the colloborative article quality, accreditation, and review projects on Wikipedia: PR, FA, have identified their project's resources are limited, recognized editor focus on a low number of articles as crucial given the interactive nature of a review, sought to ensure continued efficient and effective service for the benefit of all the Wikipedia community, and acted accordingly setting limits. – Whitehorse1 13:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Malleus will correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure that his statement "So the queue size is n? So what?" may be interpreted to mean that he regards the number of articles at GAN as fairly irrelevant compared to (say) "median waiting time" (one of his choices). I paraphrased because I disagree with his implicit suggestion that GAN is a queue. At best you can argue that it is a large number of queues, one for each subtopic. However, the items are only ordered to encourage (but not require) the reviewing of "nominations [which] are older", and hence improve (e.g.) the median wait time. If the goal were to reduce the number of articles at GAN, reviewing any article would do. Unfortunately we don't have stats on the median wait: if someone wants to set that up, it would be very welcome. I maintain graphs based on the stats we have. I didn't actually link any of them in this thread, but regarding reviewer growth, the best one I have is on the right (it shows articles on review/hold, and averages). The number of articles at GAN has been growing steadily, but a large proportion of that growth is the number of articles on review/hold. From the data, and my experience, I conclude that there are more reviewers and they are taking more time to provide higher quality reviews. Rumours of GAN's forthcoming demise, under the weight of nominations, have been greatly exaggerated. Geometry guy 22:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. I admire backlog elimination drives too, but all the evidence I have seen in the data is that they have absolutely no long term effect.

Your interpretation of what I meant to say is spot on, as is your analysis that there's not one queue but many. I persist in my use of the word "queue" though, based on my experience that there are many different strategies for dealing with queues, only one of which is FIFO, which is not always the most efficient. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about offering tit for tat incentive

I have a number of articles that I'd like to see get promoted to GA status. I've been careful not to "flood" the queue, only putting one on at a time, and I've been sure to review at least as many articles that I submit. However, I'm impatient, and would like to speed up the process. How does does the editorship feel about me adding a byline to my nominations, something like "Review this article and I'll do a copyedit or peer review on an article of your choice?" I don't want to make GA waves, nor give the appearance of impropriety, so thought I'd ask here first. Sasata (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea really; you're heart's in the right place but I don't think the plan would work. It gives rise to questions of neutrality and may lead to some more inexperienced editors rushing to review your article to help theirs. While it's important to get reviews done, I don't think this the right way to encourage more reviews. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Nev1 on this point. It is worth pointing out (yet again) that there is not a uniform backlog of GAN reviews, some categories are much worse than others: see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report#Summary, i.e. the oldest GANs in some categories are 2 and 8 days old, whilst others are in the 50s, 60s and sometimes 70 days. One "solution", which may be unworkable for you, is to create and submit GANs that are in low backlog categories. Another way of getting them through quickly is to build up a track record of producing articles than are easy for the reviewer to review (and pass).Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think this is dangerous ground, despite your good faith, and would not like to see such bylines at GAN. However, what you say in your user space is up to you. I've noticed generally that Wikipedians are more inclined to help other editors who are helpful themselves. For instance some reviewers like to review nominations from nominators who only nominate when the article is really close to GA and respond swiftly to fix concerns. Similarly, if you do a lot of reviews yourself, your good will may be noticed. As long as the reviewing process is transparent, and the outcome is based only on whether the article meets the GA criteria, it seems churlish to forbid the collegiate spirit that "helping the helpful" fosters. If you regularly offer to copyedit or peer review after a GAN review, no matter what the outcome, even a fail you strongly disagree with, then you may acquire a reputation as being helpful. If there is any sign that you are attempting to influence the outcome with such offers, you may instead acquire a reputation for impropriety. Geometry guy 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's what I figured, just needed to hear it from others. I'll work on making sure my articles are easy to pass :) Sasata (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hamnet Shakespeare problem

Could someone offer a second opinion on this article? The reviewer and I have differing opinions. Someone more experienced with GA would be a huge help. The more the merrier. Wrad (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How to handle the cricket nominations?

I'm new to GAN and I suspect that I should pick an "easier" article to review, but looking at the backlog the several XX in Australian cricket in YYYY articles that are up for review seem to be at the top of the backlog pile. My problem is that the articles appear to be well written, but can they pass 3b? Take for example Bill Johnston with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Obviously Bill Johnson and Australian cricket team in England in 1948 could have GA articles about them, but can an article so narrow in focus be broad in its coverage, per 3c? I'd almost suggest that they should be merged up into one or both of those instead. Is it the role of a GA reviewer to even consider scope of an article or should we take it as a given and review what's here? Thoughts? JRP (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The GA reviewer's job is to decide whether or not an article meets the good article criteria. Simple as that. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Can an article that is so narrowly focused meet the criteria? In specific, how do we weigh these narrowly focused articles against requirement 3? JRP (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't see any reason why not, looks like a nice article to me. In fact the summary style recommended here on wikipedia tends quite naturally to lead to articles like this one. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All the articles Yellow Monkey has wrote are of a very very high quality! The articles are way too informative to be merged. Aaroncrick (Tassie Talk) 00:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. That's all I was looking for. I'm not experienced enough at reviewing these so I wanted another set of opinions. JRP (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks all done here, but just to say I think you're misinterpreting "broad in its coverage". This part of criteria means broad in the coverage of the specific topic. Thus, if Johnston's role in the team is not discussed, or one of the tests isn't discussed then it wouldn't be "broad in its coverage". It means coverage within the article's scope. Hope that clarifies things. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to add I think Sillyfolkboy's comment is the clearest. "Broadness" means the article broadly covers the scope defined by the article title. Geometry guy 23:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The parent article Bill Johnston (cricketer) and most of the other ones are already FAs and GAs so merging into it wouldn't work without making the article too big and undue weight on the famous tour. All the matches every person played in is discussed, and their role/job in the team is also discussed. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A record?

The five oldest unreviewed articles are all by the same author/nom (me). A new record? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's probably a pattern. Are they boring (just kidding)? All in the same category? You're just that badass? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well the cricket folks have a bit of a policy of not GARing other cricket articles, and non-cricket people don't understand the sport, especially US people so it seems, so it never gets picked up. Same for swimming and VN, probably because the stuff I Write about, the WikiProjects are usualy dead...YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I do feel your pain a bit. I've done a few noms in various categories lately, and the time-to-review varies widely. I'm finding Literature moves quickly, not so much for Theatre, TV, Movies stuff. I want to set up some sort of quid pro quo system that makes the whole thing faster, but it cannot be straight across, for conflict of interest reasons. Otherwise I'd offer to review one of your cricket players, in exchange for reviewing my Xena episode. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. I have done three of your articles (a swimmer and two crickets - or maybe it was two swimmers and one cricket - and I have tried to do more of yours. It would help if, like the pro-wrestling articles, you had the obscure cricket terms wikilinked to explanatory articles. My first pro-wrestling review was hell, but since the editors back up everything with wikilinks, I am actually learning about pro-wrestling. Same with baseball and videogames. They have great links to all their obscure terminology. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Talking about wiki projects, WP Tasmania has slumbered to it's death a long time ago, and there isn't any action on any of the articles really, which is a shame =( Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 23:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Cricket's very simple. You just have to push to the off and on sides until your batters have amassed enough runs to declare, then hit the wicket hard and hope you get leg before wicket to take the batman's wicket (or when they run between the wickets), avoiding no-balls and dead-balls, get them all out and see if you can enforce the follow-on. Very simple. Apterygial 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that's one way at looking at it. Made the game sound very simple =) Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 23:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Problematic review

Please look at Talk:Hamnet Shakespeare and the GA reviews. It's been put up for a second opinion, but I think it needs more than that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has passed. It meets the GAC. What more can we do? Personally, I think the article is so slight that it doesn't warrant stand alone status. But it does meet GAC and has passed review. ShaShaJackson (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The sad thing is that in a legalistic sense Hamnet may perhaps be WP:notable but is not notable in real terms - he should be a footnote in 3 or 4 plays, with a redirect to William Shakespeare#Life, which can accomodate content that is not play-specific. ShaShaJackson, the reviewer, wrote, "The actual content in this article about Hamnet Shakespeare could be written on the head of a pin. The article may better serve Wikipedia by being merged into a larger article, er .... something like “Shakespeare's children” or “Scholarly speculation about Shakespeare's descendants”? The article passes the Wikipedia:Good article criteria for good spelling, good grammar, good punctuation, good footnoting, good this, good that, blahblahblah that I'm tempted to pass it but I'm going to ask for a second opinion. The editor replied, "This is about all that can be said about the guy. Don't worry about the length, ..."

So do we go with WP:rules or WP:COMMONSENSE? -Philcha (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Every wikipedia article has to be on a notable subject, that's nothing to do with the GA criteria. Hamnet doesn't look notable to me (notability is not inherited), and so someone should formally propose that it be merged, perhaps with the main William Shakespeare article, or even that the article be deleted. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree with Malleus; the content should probably be merged into Shakespeare and/or Hamlet and the title redirected. There's no indication of why this young lad is notable in his own right. EyeSerene^talk 13:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the fence; obviously, articles need to be notable, but I'm not convinced that this one isn't. There's not much there for a biography, but his influence on his father's work does seem to have been the subject of some serious mainstream scholarship. I'm not sure it's a GA (I'd want to see more elaboration of the apparent mainstream view that Hamlet wasn't inspired by him, since by the information currently in the article it seems very intuitive that it would have been), but I don't know that merging is the best course of action. The best way to resolve this might be via AFD; that's where notability is properly ascertained. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to take it to AfD as well, on balance. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That might be best. Even the connections to Hamlet and Twelfth Night, which is where notability would be asserted, are highly speculative. FWIW, (and unrelated to GA) Susanna Hall is even more tenuous, though Judith Quiney looks better. EyeSerene^talk 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD might be the best bet, but I totally agree with Sarcasticidealist above. He seems to have been an inspiration for Shakespeare's work, and in my eyes this would make him notable. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been called many things before, but "an inspiration for Shakespeare's work" is among the kindest. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, sorry but I meant Hamnet was... ;) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Taken to AFD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You folks are inserting your own opinions about whether or not this figure is notable, rather than objectively looking at policy. Notability is determined by the sources. There are plenty of sources about Hamnet, therefore Hamnet is notable. It's that simple. I challenge anyone to type his name into any scholarly or not-so-scholarly database. He's all over the place. Please just leave this article well enough alone. Wrad (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That Hamnet has been the subject of a great deal of unsubstantiated academic speculation is not in doubt. The question is, does that make him notable? Or is this really an article about the speculation, as I believe? Either way, everyone is as entitled to their opinion as you yourself are. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to make judgments about the scholarship, please, please at least spell the name right. Otherwise it will appear that you haven't actually read much of it at all and I will doubt your conclusion. Wrad (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've read all of the article, twice. Took me a total of 28.5 seconds. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Behind this storm in a tea-cup, I would like to point out that this article has not received a thorough GAN review (see Talk:Hamnet Shakespeare/GA1, Talk:Hamnet Shakespeare/GA2). The GA criteria are not primarily about "good spelling, good grammar, good punctuation, good footnoting" etc. They are primarily "Is it broad, is it neutral, is it verifiable?" For myself, I am somewhat concerned that the relevance of an extremely long quote (from King John) is sourced to Bill Bryson, which seems somewhat WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, in the key passage, "More recent scholarship has emphasised that, while Hamlet has a Scandinavian origin and may have been selected as a play subject for commercial reasons, Shakespeare's grief over the loss of his only son may lie at the heart of the tragedy. This scholarship remains outside the mainstream view.[9][13]" both citations are to Greenblatt, who is the proponent of this view. Hence they should be attached to the first sentence and he should be attributed to the viewpoint, which needs to be checked against the source for synthesis. The second sentence needs independent verification. Geometry guy 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence does not need independent verification as Greenblatt himself, I believe, acknowledges that his view is not in the mainstream. His essay covers the sentence. Wrad (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, widely accepted views don't need citation at the GA level. But there's no harm in finding an independent reference anyway (and you'll need it at FAC!) Geometry guy 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for these good and constructive comments on how to improve the article. I won't speak for Wrad (the nominator), but I know I felt the review(s) provided to be a bit on the… uhm. …superficial side, and might even go so far as to suggest that the GA Pass may have been somewhat premature or motivated by factors outside the GA criteria. However, since the review(s) are now closed (for good or bad), perhaps I could persuade you to place these comments on the article's Talk page? I'm not sure very many of the potential editors for the article follow the GAN talk page. Thanks. --Xover (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree, Geometry guy, and have been concerned as I have watch the issues regarding this article being distilled to "good spelling, good grammar, good punctuation, good footnoting" etc. I hope this is an opportunity to clarify the issues of context and focus. And I am concerned about possible WP:SYN. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's take it to GAR after. I really despise how the GA process is so dependent on ONE editor's review. I don't think it needs saying, but I really felt cheated by the reviews I got. Jackyd had some good ideas, but I never got a chance to implement them because of this big distraction. I have some ideas to improve on it. I'll do those as the AfD continues, and then we'll have a GAR. Sound good? Wrad (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I may have missed something, but the review appears to have been closed, as the article is now listed as a GA. In any event, I would have thought that this whole kerfuffle demonstrates very well that the GA process is not at the whim of one editor's review. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I commented here because one of the purposes of this talk page is to promote best practice for GAN reviews. If my specific comments are useful on the talk page of the article, feel free to quote me. I also think that if the article survives AfD without a merge (or delete), a GAR might be helpful. Geometry guy 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The AfD closed as keep. I want to point out that the article has improved quite a bit since the review. I believe it meets the criteria. It's been put through a pretty stiff strainer. Still, anyone who wants to has every right to ask for a GAR. If I could politely request though, that you put your suggestions on the article's talk page and give us a chance to respond to them first, before putting it up for GAR, that would be great. I would be more than happy to respond. I also want to request that we close the merge discussion with the AfD. Consensus has overwhelmingly established that this article has a right to exist on its own. Let's let the issue rest and move on to ways that this article can remain at GA quality on its own, thus respecting that consensus. Wrad (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I voted keep at the AfD, and upon cursory examination, I think the article meets the GAC. However, the GA pass seems to have been done in frustration, and I think you might want to renominate it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I think you need a real review. I imagine the article will pass easily. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going through that again. I'm not leaving this to the whim of one editor again. Any issues people want to work out can be done either on the talk page or at GAR. Wrad (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to all (perhaps especially Wrad), but I don't believe WP:SNOW was correctly applied in closing the AfD debate, especially while it was still underway. I haven't overturned the closure, but I've posted to that effect on WT:AFD. It may be that we can WP:IAR as far as the debate is concerned and let sleeping dogs lie, though obviously there are still issues around the GA assessment. EyeSerene^talk 10:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a complete waste of time that resolved nothing. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Where else would SNOW be better applied than in an AfD with 0 delete votes, and more than a 4 to 1 margin for keeping over merging (even the nominator voted keep!)? If you restarted the AfD, you would just get the same results and it would be a waste of everyone's time since consensus clearly established that the article has a right to exist as a stand alone. Any disinterested passer-by would see that as clear as day. If you really think something was wrong with it, feel free to renominate it for AfD so that it can prove even more solidly its right to exist! Either that or drop it and leave this poor article alone. Wrad (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that no-one had voted to delete, so strictly speaking SNOW did apply, but I thought it was unhelpful to close a discussion that was still underway and might as well continue there as anywhere - I felt the closure was a application of process over product, if you like. However, although as Malleus says nothing was really settled, I guess we've been kicked back to GA. How do you feel about the GA status - would GAR be useful? EyeSerene^talk 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SNOW didn't apply, in my view. RfA is not a vote, and "delete" and "keep" are not the only possible outcomes. But comments on this belong at WT:AfD, not here. Geometry guy 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about with this "nothing was really settled" bit. It was 4 to 1 that the article should be kept as a stand alone. You'd have to be blind not to call that an overwhelming consensus. I personally feel like the article meets the criteria, as do others. I don't see any reason for me to challenge the article's status at GAR if I agree with it's status. If someone else wants to, that is their right. However, since an overwhelming consensus has already voted against merging the article, that point needs to be dropped. If you have an issue with this article's status, it's gotta be something besides that. If you disagree (speaking to anyone) I issue an open challenge to anyone to put this article up at AfD and have another merge discussion. That proposal will crash and burn just as it did last time. Wrad (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Again I apologise for my lack of clarity. I'm referring to the article's GA status as measured against the GA criteria. Nothing to do with notability at all. You mention above that you now believe the article meets the GA criteria as some improvement has taken place, but there was another suggestion to renominate it to get a proper review (to which you responded that you'd prefer the 'talk page or GAR'). That's what I was referring to. EyeSerene^talk 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion at AfD was (I still believe) closed prematurely, it looks like this'll have to go to GAR, on the basis that the article does not meet criterion 3, in particular 3b, and did not in any case receive a proper review. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, what are you waiting for? Why does everyone insist that I challenge my own article's GA status? Would you do that if you had gone through what I have? Seriously, people :) Wrad (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And here's me trying to be tactful :) I was concerned not to give the impression that there's a vendetta underway against the article, which was why I asked rather than nominated. I see your point though... EyeSerene^talk 19:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And I must say I appreciate that tact! Speaking as one (of several) contributor(s) to that article, it was very painful to watch what—from my point of view—at times felt like a big pileup of people just wanting to tear down what I'd painstakingly built (or in this case, contributed to building). While watching Wikipedia happily accumulate fancruft and "specific notability guidelines", it seemed entirely incomprehensible to me that so much effort would be put into removing (delete or merge) this article. In that context, a little tact went a long way towards making the process a more constructive one. In other words: Thank you, it is much appreciated! :-) --Xover (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you to calm down a little, so that the discussion can be rational instead of emotional. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It would help me calm down if people approached this more like Serene and less like an all out war (kill it or bust!) Wrad (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I mean, you're seeing everything in black and white at the moment. If you had looked a little closer you might have noticed that nobody was trying to "tear down" or "kill or bust" anything. The essence of the discussion is not whether the article ought or ought not to be kept, but whether—given its present title—it meets criterion 3. My submission that it does not is no reflection on anything other than that, and it would be better if the discussion did not once again deteriorate into unwarranted and unhelpful personal comments. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If I nominated it, I would say something silly like "I actually think this article passes, so I don't really have any specific criteria in mind that it doesn't meet, but oh well." That would be weird. Also, if there honestly isn't a vendetta against this article, why isn't anyone challenging the other three or four articles this reviewer passed? Why all the attention on Hamnet? The reviewer didn't fail a one, yet this is the only one people care about. Wrad (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This article caught attention because the poor review was highlighted on this talk page. If you see bad reviewing practice anywhere, please advise us here. It is preferable to post about a review (or reviews), as in this case, rather than a reviewer. The edit, not the editor is the unit of currency on Wikipedia. Geometry guy 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely false Geoguy. ALL of his reviews were highlighted on this page as being faulty, and ONLY Hamnet was spear tackled. The rest were just ignored. Don't try to paint a prettier picture here. People are saying the review was faulty, and that's why it should be at GAR, but they turn a blind eye at all of his other faulty reviews. Say all you want about edits versus editors, but the GA process doesn't seem to be in practice what you think it is. Right now, it feels to me like a platform for some frankenstinian mixture of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT and WP:Notability, with utter disregard for the actual GA criteria. Wrad (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you link these threads? The only ones I know are #Hamnet Shakespeare problem, started by you, and #Problematic review, which refers to the same article. Geometry guy 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(unind)I guess no one did say anything, at least not, is even more of a crime.. Ironically, I was the one who asked for help, and in return I get harassed and ridiculed, my work is considered worthless. What kind of organization is this?! GA is apparently just a gang of kids going after picked targets. There is a pretense of objectivity, but nothing real under the surface. One editor with no experience in literature and even less in actual Wiki editing (just over fifty edits), can come through here and pass several articles, catching all of you guys with your pants down, and you don't even care. And then this project has the gall to ask for a little green symbol in the corner of its articles. Gimme a break. My eyes are opened now.

I tried to get help from this talk page and all I got was a good kick in the crotch. Last time I ever ask for help from the GA process. I try to free myself from the clutches of this terrible review, and then suddenly it's all my fault. People want me to delist the article I've fought so hard for! They want me to put it up for GAR!

And they don't even realize the irony of what they're saying! They say that it's all speculation, yet none of them seem to realize that 90% of the Humanities discipline is speculation! We might as well delete 90% of the William Shakespeare article, if we're so concerned with bare facts. And we shouldn't stop there. We should comb through Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet to take it down to bare facts. Do realize how silly that would be?? And then there's this idea that somehow the article goes off topic by discussing it's subjects influence on literature. Doesn't anyone notice that William Shakespeare's article talks about his influence on literature? How about RMS Lusitania? About half of it is the influence of it sinking on history. Did anyone notice this gross violation of GA criteria 3b?? Apparently they don't, otherwise they would demand the offending sections be removed as a distraction to the article's subject, just as they are with Hamnet.

Don't you have some video game cruft to go after, rather than attacking this legitimate subject of Shakespearean scholarship. Can't you just leave well enough alone? Is this the best use of your time? Can I ask, just once, that someone here put themselves in my shoes and try to uderstand my frustration here. This whole thing is ABSOLUTELY MINDBOGGLING to me! An article with 15 citations, most of which are from well-respected scholarly sources, is put up for freaking AfD. And then when it fails by an overwhelming margin, you say it wasn't closed right and the conclusion is in question? What kind of Circus is this?

Are you starting to see how utterly strange this is all to me? I respect you, Geo Guy. I always have, and Malleus and I share many common opinions, but what the heck kind of drugs have you all been smoking lately? I say that in the kindest way I can muster in my baffled state. Wrad (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm saddened to see this Wrad, as I did think that we shared many of the same views about lots of things on wikipedia. You seem to have got the wind under your feathers because you believe that the quality of this article is being questioned. Speaking only for myself, nothing could be further from the truth. If the article was entitled something like "Effect of Hamnet Shakespeare's death on his father's writing" I'd be applauding it as a clear. concise summary of academic speculation. However it's masquerading as a biography of Hamnet Shakespeare, and that's my problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all to me. Nowhere does the article claim to be a biography. It only claims, by the title, to be an article about Hamnet Shakespeare, and that is all that it discusses. I fail to see anything wrong with that. Wrad (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah well. It makes sense to me. The article hardly discusses Hamnet Shakespeare at all, as so little is known about him. Even you must surely admit that's true. The article is about the speculated effects of his death on his father. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, if I follow that logic, then half of RMS Lusitania has to go because it isn't really "about" Lusitania at all, it's about its influence after its "death". Don't you see how silly that is? An article about Hamnet has to include any of his influence that is notable to the sources, otherwise it won't meet the breadth requirement. People are applying a double standard to this article and that needs to stop if GA is going to have any integrity. Wrad (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

They failed my Silver Age of Comics. At least I think they did. I'm still trying to decide what to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a procedural GAR nomination is the best way to go then, if only to put this to rest. I won't have time to do that this evening, but I'll be happy to do the business tomorrow (if no-one else wants the job!) Thanks for bringing up those other reviews, Wrad - that hadn't occurred to me, but in the light of your article and Peregrine Fisher's comment, you're right that they need looking into. Thank you too to Xover; we really do want the best for all articles that come through GAN, and your understanding and forbearance is likewise much appreciated. EyeSerene^talk 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a procedural community GAR would be a good approach, because the original GAN review was not ideal. There is no rush, though. It is good to see improvements to the article occurring in response to this suboptimal story. Geometry guy 22:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• These are the other reviews by the same reviewer, ShaShaJackson: Metzengerstein , The Gold-Bug, and Silver Age of Comic Books. To remove all question, probably all of these should be reviewed again. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we just put them back on the list? I just put another GAN template at the top of Silver Age of Comics. It was never removed from WP:GAN, so I just left it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. My suggestion would be to reinstate the GANs as they were before these "reviews" were started and to start again. I know full well though how frustrating it is to have to go back in the queue, so I promise that if nobody else picks the articles up within a week then I will. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• I rereviewed The Gold-Bug and it remains a GA. I have not done Metzengerstein but can do it today, if no one else does. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Break

I absolutely must copy the enlightening discussion on my talk page to this page. Here it is: <beginning of copy>

I hope you don't mind if I throw in my 2p worth as well. I appreciate your frustration, especially when it appears to you that you've done all the right things to get attention for a substandard review and, from your perspective, unfairly ended up in the stocks yourself. I don't believe that really is the case, but I can understand why it may look that way to you. It might help to clarify for you why events followed the sequence they did.

Reason for AfD: The poor review for Hamnet was rightly highlighted by both you and Peregrine Fisher; but before this could be tackled questions were raised about the scope of the article - the argument was essentially that title implies that it's a biography, but much of the content relates not to Hamnet himself but to his possible influence on his father. This again is understandable; how much can one write about a boy who lived over 400 years ago and died when he was eleven? Frankly I'm impressed that you found as much as you did. However the balance of the article is, perhaps unavoidably, skewed by the additional content, leaving the impression that Hamnet's only real 'claim to fame' is not who he was and what he did, but the effect of his death on his father. As such, we asked "does the article meet WP:BIO?" As a more fundamental issue than the GA review, the article's right to exist in it's current form needed to be tested first - hence the AfD. In retrospect this turned out to be a poor decision, partly I think because the issues were too nuanced for that forum and have been misunderstood, and partly because the (incorrect IMO) SNOW closure killed the debate prematurely. I should add that there was no chance the article content was ever going to be deleted, and quite rightly - it's all good, verifiable, sourced stuff - but we were hoping to clarify if content + title = notable, stand-alone article. Much unfortunate confusion resulted on all sides.

Reason for GAR: Even with the AfD something of a cock-up, we've still any outstanding GA assessment issues to address. This seemed to be something you were open to, so I suggested GAR as a place where we can get more eyes on the article and give it the detailed treatment it should have had from it's original review. I was in no way suggesting you nominate it yourself, but under the circumstances wanted to get your approval for the nomination. GAR's aim, first and foremost, is to improve the articles that arrive there so we don't need to delist them, but without your willing input on Hamnet that would be a fairly pointless exercise.

Rather more than 2p worth, but I hope I've been able to explain why we took the steps we did, and hope you can appreciate that it's only ever been about doing the best we can for the article. You're right that there are other reviews that need revisiting, but as G'guy says until we're told about them or someone happens to notice them, we can't do much about it. It's a weakness of the single-reviewer system that we are well aware of, but is thankfully becoming less common as we tighten up procedures and look at ways we can improve review consistency and quality (not that it's much comfort to you at the moment!) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 12:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(apologies it this comment is a bit awkward; posting from iPhone is... not optimal)

Who said Hamnet Shakespeare is a biography? Were you under the impression that, say, William Shakespeare is a biography? Xover (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. The article never claimed to be a biography. It only claimed to be about Hamnet. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In what way is William Shakespeare not a biographical article, Xover? It covers his life from birth to death, with analysis and commentary, in as much detail as can be sourced within the limits of the article's focus. I'm slightly confused why you'd contest that, or are we just quibbling over semantics (a biography is different from a WP:BIO article)?

In my experience it's standard practice on Wikipedia to regard articles titled after a specific person as bio articles. At GA, the article title affects its assessment under criterion 3 (broadness of coverage), and specifically 3b (focus). If you look further up WT:GAN, you'll notice we've been discussing this very subject with regards to sportspeople, whose articles often concentrate in minute detail on their sporting career but omit even a minimal level of the sort of biographical information we'd expect to see in an article with their name at the top of it. The clear consensus is that such articles fail GA, as they are not sufficiently broad in relation to their stated intent as defined by their title. For example, if an article is entitled "Joe Bloggs (footballer)", I'd expect to see information about his birth, education, family, marriage, children, charity work, etc as well as what clubs he's played for and how many goals he's scored. If it's entitled "Joe Bloggs's football career", the focus of the article changes and I wouldn't expect (or want) the same level of biographical information. Hamnet Shakespeare is, by its title, defining itself as a bio article - if that wasn't the intent, then perhaps the title should be changed? EyeSerene^talk 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If by "same level as other bios" you mean that it contains everything that the available sources have to say, I don't see the problem. William Shakespeare doesn't meet the descriptions at WP:BIO. Most of it is about his writing, not his life. That's just the nature of the beast. That's what most people talk about when they talk about Shakespeare. Similarly, when people talk about Hamnet, they talk mostly about his influence on his father's writing. The article reflects what the sources say. You can't apply one rigid WP:BIO standard to the lives of all of the millions of people in the world. Everyone is different. WP:BIO is just a guideline, meaning that it recognizes this and respects that there will be unforeseen exceptions. Please, then, stop applying a double standard to this article. The title is Hamnet Shakespeare because that is the subject of the article. There is no better title. The article is part of a series of articles on Shakespeare's family, so changing the title would also disturb the incredibly logical pattern of having each article in the set have the same name as the person it is talking about (what an idea!) If you think the article is violating 3b, let me ask you this: would you fail RMS Lusitania on 3b for getting on a tangent about the influence it had after it "died"? Would you demand the article be renamed Speculation on the influence of the Lusitania? If not, why then do you demand that Hamnet be failed because it talks about his influence after his death? How is that off the subject? Wrad (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another flaw in your argument is the connection to sports articles. Yes, people are agreed that if an article talk only about a person's career, and not about the rest of his life, then it fails (actually, your claim of consensus on this is very debatable, but I give it to you just for kicks). However, this article leaves no stone unturned biographically. It talks about Hamnet's entire life. It omits no portion of it. It has information about his birth, education, parentage, godparent, dwelling-place, etc. Wrad (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The more I read that discussion, the more clear it is to me that a double-standard is being applied. Look at this quote from Geo guy: "Why do we have to describe people only in biography format? Why can't we have GAs that discuss the contribution of person X to Y?" and Philcha says "Chess promotion apart, Geometry guy is right - "it addresses the main aspects of the topic" makes influences on and influences of the subject more important than private lives, unless these became causes celebres (to put it politely) or influenced the career that made the subject notable." I particularly like one of your own quotes: "That's broadly true, of course, but we're in a bit of a grey area. I think part of the problem is that while many things are of note, they aren't documented in the highest-quality sources because they aren't of note to those sources. We wouldn't, for example, expect to find personal information about a footballer in a peer-reviewed academic journal or even necessarily a quality broadsheet - the audience for that information, by and large, is the readership of the tabloid newspaper, so that's where we'd look. I completely agree that such sources must be handled carefully, but that doesn't mean they have no value at all." So... why are you attacking an article that actually does have academic sources? Why don't you go back to attacking tabloids, where you're really needed? Wrad (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(unind)Oooooo. Here's another good one from Peanut4: "You have to take each article on its own merits; however, the good article criteria particular 3a says "Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" Where the note states: "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics." To me, that does not say a biography of someone who is very rarely in the public eye outside of his/her main field, needs to go into much detail at all. Some detail is certainly preferable and not to be discouraged, but I wouldn't be demanding much more than that." Am I reading the same discussion you are? Where is the "clear consensus ... that such articles fail GA" that you mentioned? I'm not finding it. I'm finding the opposite. Wrad (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent and bullet point for clarity) William Shakespeare is an article with biographical material, but it is deliberately and specifically, by consensus, not a biographical article. Shakespeare's life is the biographical article on William Shakespeare (ignore the fact that that article isn't very good yet, WP:BARD plans to remedy that when time allows). Additions of biographical material to William Shakespeare are usually reverted and moved to Shakespeare's life instead. Much like further detail on the plays are moved to Shakespeare's plays, &c.. If the GA process—and the folks who hang out there—has evolved some kind of rule that says an article located at First Last must ipso facto always be a biographical article (and more specifically, must always be a biography and nothing else!) then the GA process has taken a wrong turn somewhere. Both William Shakespeare and Hamnet Shakespeare are instances of a main article; the only difference is that there is not enough material on Hamnet to warrant actual sub-articles. In any case, if all the people arguing enthusiastically for merger or rename have somehow made the assumption that First Last equals Biography then I begin to understand why they're taking the (previously incomprehensible to me) positions they have been. Don't get me wrong, it's a fair rule of thumb for the daily grind of working through the GAN backlog, but it cannot ever be a hard rule (and, for that matter, WP:IAR).
  Also, your example of the sports articles is apt, but does not lead to the conclusion you draw: the biographical information that was missing is important because the life of the person in question is one important aspect and as such should be covered; along with the material related to their sporting career (which is what makes them notable). If one were to apply the arguments made regarding Hamnet Shakespeare to these articles, once the biographical material was added one could as well say they should be renamed to Biography of John Doe (cricketer).
  To me this seems like an uncommonly apt example of lacking common sense and an overabundance of bureaucratic enthusiasm (bikeshedding and wikilawyering, to apply the WP:SPADE). Where else would one expect to find information about Hamnet Shakespeare than at Hamnet Shakespeare? What possible gain could be had from renaming it when all that would be left behind is a redirect (as opposed to, say, two articles on different aspects of the same subject, or a dab page, or... pretty much anything at all except a redirect)? While I'm sure there's some truth to the assumption that both I and Wrad have some kind of emotional investiture in this article (as Wikipedia editors often do, and that is a sign of health; pride in your work) and would probably benefit from taking a step back and considering the question in a more clinical light (not more objectively, just more clinically); I rather think it's the rest of you who are in dire need of taking a big step back from the abyss of Wikipedia process (not just GAN) and consider where would a random Wikipedia visitor expect to find the article about Hamnet Shakespeare! --Xover (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Clearly. I would have thought you would have all woken up when your attempt at AfD failed so miserably. Most Wikipedians apparently do not think like you folks do. Get your heads out of the clouds. Wrad (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrad you make very good points, but they would come across better without the "us-and-them" approach of "double standard" and "your attempt at AfD". Our aim is to improve the encyclopedia, not win or lose battles and arguments. The AfD was literally a procedural nomination (by SarcasticIdealist, who !voted "keep"): there was no concerted attempt to delete the article. My own contributions were aimed at clarifying the issue and exploring the boundaries: indeed, one could say I blew some of the arguments for merger or rename out of the water.

I think the arguments over whether the article on X is a biography are primarily definition disagreements, which are meaningless: you just have to find the right correspondence between editors' definitions. In my view any article whose title is a person's name is in some sense automatically a biography: it should cover the life, work and influence of the person, as described by, and in balance with, reliable secondary sources. This is why I argue that in articles on sports people whose private life is unreported and not notable, it is reasonable to focus on their professional life, with little mention of their private life. In the case of William Shakespeare noted above, his work and influence is obviously far more important than other aspects of his life, and it is reasonable that most of the coverage concerns that. Shakespeare's life is not a biography, in my view: it wouldn't even make a reasonable obituary, because of the inadequate coverage of his work. But others use the term "biography" to mean "life-story".

In terms of my quote above, a longer version is "I don't have a problem with [editor irrelevant]'s nominations of articles which refer to a person's contribution to a particular event. What is unencylopedic about that? Why do we have to describe people only in biography format? Why can't we have GAs that discuss the contribution of person X to Y?" in a thread where I previously noted "I would encourage the option of page moves (renaming the article) rather than failing as a biography." In other words, I'm not arguing that biographies should be unbiographical, but that renaming is always an option and other types of articles on individuals can be GAs too.

In a case where the only notable aspect of an individual is their possible influence on another, one has to ask whether biography (in my sense) is the best format. An article with title "Hamnet Shakespeare" and lead sentence "Hamnet Shakespeare (baptised 2 February 1585 – buried 11 August 1596) was the only son of William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway, and the fraternal twin of Judith Shakespeare." is a biography. The biographical structure does not even draw the reader's attention to the main point in the first sentence. Good arguments have been made for keeping it as a biography, but I think it would be so much easier to write a cast-iron GA, using the material available, with a different slant and, probably, a different title. Geometry guy 20:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss. Please explain exactly how this article should be split/renamed/mangled and why that would be better. All I'm seeing is the creation of some nonsense side article fork about speculation with a redirect in the actual Hamnet space, which makes no sense, since anyone looking for info on Hamnet Shakespeare is most likely to type in "Hamnet Shakespeare". Again, get your head out of the sand, please. This is a double standard, if we're going to follow WP:SPADE. I'm merely calling a spade a spade. Stop trying to force this article to fit your otherworldly idea of what an article about a person should be. This is reality. You an I are bound by what the sources give us. We can say no more and no less. Wrad (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

<end of copy>

It's evident that you're too emotional to think clearly about this. Geometry guy has made some very pertinent observations and a few good suggestions. I don't entirely agree with everything he says, but wikipedia is all about reaching reasonable compromises. I fail to see how remarks like "get your head out of the sand" are likely to aid in that process, and I would encourage you to moderate your tone. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying get your head out of the sand because many of you are apparently too stuck on non-existent policy wording to have any common sense any more. Xover agrees with me on this. I'm not just being emotional. This is the biggest case of wikilawyering and nit-picking I've ever seen. It's crazy and it needs to stop. If moderating my tone means that I should stop calling this what it is, then I refuse to do it. Wrad (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Please see (and use) User talk:Wrad for personal discussion. Concerning non-personal statements, I have not stated that I think the article should be merged or renamed, only that serious thought is needed about it. What for instance, should the first sentence of this article say, whatever is its title? Geometry guy 21:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that this discussion has become unproductive, and I have no intention of listening to any more of Wrad's emotional hyperbole. I will say no more until this article is taken to GAR, where in my opinion it ought to be now, for not meeting criterion 3. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• I can't find the section to enter this so I am entering it here. I re-reviewed The Gold-Bug and it was definitely a GA. I looked over Metzengerstein and saw no need to redue the review as, although the review is inadequate, nonetheless its conclusion is correction. Metzengerstein is also a GA without a re-review. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This process is broken

It is apparent to me that this project is broken. It has been hijacked by a bunch of bureaucrats who, rogue-admin-like wield their powers in order to change the 'pedia as they see fit. Meanwhile, reviews are not only lacking in quantity, they are lacking in quality. Many an editor is forced to wait a month or more for a review, only to have joeshmolamereviewer come along and give them a (as I have heard it called) "suboptimal" review. Any schmuck can take on the role of reviewer and hold an article hostage for up to seven days until it bends to his will, even if he has barely an edit to his name. Take a look at the reviews of one such reviewer in The Gold Bug which is passed with little comment, or Hamnet Shakespeare, were he refuses to recuse himself despite a request from an outside editor. And beyond that, how about this review of an article written by a kid as an experiment at a public school where students were given an assignment to make a GA out of a science article. Read what the teacher had to say here. Pretty sad. Wrad (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The essence of what that teacher had to say was that it was a mistake to delegate his marking responsibilities to a wikipedia review process. Seems like a very sensible observation, not sad at all. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why does Geo Guy apologize on behalf of the whole project in the same link, Malleus? The fact is, the review was lame. Wrad (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not ask Geometry guy? He and I don't always agree.;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're one to talk about tone. Wrad (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you really feel that the increasingly personal tone of your comments is appropriate? I don't. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Or even EyeSerene, who was the one actually making the comment, not me. Please slow down Wrad.

All processes on Wikipedia are imperfect (AfD and the notability guidelines look more broken to me) but hey, it is easier to snipe than try to improve them. However, I prefer to apologize only for myself. GA, like the Wikipedia itself, cannot be held to account for the behaviour of individual editors. What matters is how things turn out in the long run. Wikipedia is doing pretty well, and GA considerably better than 2 years ago. Geometry guy 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you wanted me to point out stuff, Geo, so you can't say you didn't ask for it. I'm glad to see that Matisse is actually trying to fix it, rather than just mocking my "emotional state". Wrad (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrad is getting carried away by his / her irritation that, although Hamnet Shakespeare is well-written and well-sourced, some of us think the subject is not worth an article in its own right. Some of Wrad's commnents make little sense:

• "It is apparent to me that this project is broken" is plainly false. Every day there are several "passes" and several "fails", an we agree about the great majority of them. As you can see, we quite often discuss cases that some of us find difficult to resolve.
• "It has been hijacked by a bunch of bureaucrats who, rogue-admin-like wield their powers in order to change the 'pedia as they see fit" is nonsense at least twice over:
  • If you think a GA reviwer's decisions are arbitrary, you have several options: this Talk page, WP:GAR, WP:RfC (indepedent of all GA reviewers, etc.
  • "a bunch of bureaucrats"??? I avoided submitting articles for GA review becuase I'd had some poor experiences with some real arrogant bureaucrats and the impression they gave me was that review processes were an embodiment of their attitudes. Then 2 articles on which I'd worked were nominated for GA review and to my surprise I enjoyed the experience. So now I submit and review articles.
• "Many an editor is forced to wait a month or more for a review" is true, but you fail to see the reasons: a lot of editors want to get "their own" to a higher status but don't care about those of others; and doing a proper review is hard work - read the GA criteria and try applying them to an article yourself.
• "Any schmuck can take on the role of reviewer and hold an article hostage for up to seven days until it bends to his will, even if he has barely an edit to his name" is true in theory, but seldom happens, and we tend to notice problematic reviews - which is the ony reason why your'e involved in a discussion on this page. --Philcha (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't stop the fact that it happens and it hurts when it does. GA used to be a place where articles were improved, now it's just a waiting area. The reviews that actually improve articles are getting farther and farther between, and if a project doesn't improve articles, what good is it? Why shouldn't I just skip GA and go straight to FA, where they actually make constructive comments every time? GA used to be the safeguard of the small article, but now it's grown inclined to the public execution of such articles. See the arguments used at the Hamnet Shakespeare AfD. Wrad (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

About time you left your dreamworld and joined the rest of us here in reality[9]

Doesn't change the fact that no matter the wait, you almost always get constructive criticism at FA. That's what makes it worth it. GA's wait is worse and it isn't worth it at all most of the time. Wrad (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're making no sense, your arguments are inconsistent and contradictory, and I'm getting bored with your continual whining. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, my perception is that you were never listening in the first place, so I completely understand why you don't understand. Wrad (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Your perception is of no interest to me, as it is clearly coloured by your emotional attachment to the Hamnet Shakespeare article. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I beleive this process works fairly well. I have guided twenty or so articles through this process, and review some to return the favour. I beleive we have several dedicated reviewers who do a very good job! There a FEW reviewers who do not the best job, but i have only peronsally encountered one during my own article reviews. But I have noticed others. I think the only thing we need to do find such reviewers, and if they refuse to improve the qualify of their reviews, we ban them from this review process by whatever whatever action process is necessary, possible ANI or the like. Charles Edward (Talk) 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly to you think is a "good job"? Wrad (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out the reviews of William Henry Harrison or Indiana General Assembly or Indiana Statehouse, each were done by regular reviewers who do a good job, that is fairly thorough, and the articles are worthy of their status. Charles Edward (Talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

---

To address the perception that GA was once a wonderful place, here is a GAR archive from 2 years ago. Geometry guy 23:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just want to deliver a blanket apology for any hurt feelings here. I hope whatever good points I made here are taken seriously and whatever bad ones I made will be forgiven. In any case, no hard feelings but I'm convinced now that both the GA and FA processes are fundamentally flawed in that they too often give people a false sense of accomplishment and "finished-ness" which ultimately hurts Wikipedia and its editors more than it helps. How often have you heard "We should be able to do X like it is in Y because Y is a GA/FA." Flawed argument my friends, and the natural result of a social system like Wikipedia (or anything) unless carefully guarded against. The rules set up in the criteria here and at FA are mostly good, but when they become an unbreakable law, it gets dangerous. Wikipedia is going to lose its free thinkers if it gets too big for its britches. Wrad (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Subst error with a GAR subpage?

I followed the instructions and used subst when closing this GAR: [10] - but it says in the current coding error: not substed - can someone fix this for me? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. This could be a caching issue. Please report GAR problems at WT:GAR. It's on my watchlist at least. Geometry guy 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay sorry, I assumed that talkpage was not highly frequented. But take a look in the coding of Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Christian_Bale/1 - when you click edit to edit it, it still says: error: not substed... Cirt (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Community reassessments are not intended to be transcluded onto the talk page. I've removed the transclusion. Geometry guy 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. But when you click edit to edit Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Christian_Bale/1, it still says: error: not substed in the coding of the page itself... Cirt (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Still not getting it. I've purged the servers anyway. You may need to purge your own browser cache. Geometry guy 01:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Go to Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Christian_Bale/1
2. Click the "edit" tab.
3. Look in the box with the wiki code.
4. Notice right before it says: Result: Delist per unanimous consensus
5. See: {{error:not substituted|GAR/result}}

Cirt (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're looking at the template code, everything is fine. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Biography question

I have seen statements on talk pages about what biographies should contain. However, I just looked through the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and also at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and do not see any guidelines as to the structure of a biography, nor much guideline about content. My current question is about PJ Haarsma which is a good article in my view, but seems to concentrate more on the author's work than on his life. The editor has cut some of the work-related material out to spin into another article. But still, I wonder if the article has enough about his life to be a "biography". Are there rules about this? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I brought this up above in relation to sports persons, and I have to say that this article has substantially more personal life (even if his charitable and educational work is excluded) than any of the articles I was concerned about there. I don't think it is inappropriate for an article to focus predominately on a person's notable achievements as long as it is not to the exclusion of every thing else in their life. At first glance the proportion of content in this article seems appropriate for GA (not speaking on other criteria however).--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the opinion. I needed some confirmation and I appreciate your giving it to me. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't do GA reviews, but I do review composer biographies. My opinion is that biographies should always contain personal details (formative family history, early home, marriage, children, death), assuming they are available (maybe not for public figures that keep their personal lives private). Friendships and other relationships that are relevant to the subject's notability should also be documented (e.g. Tchaikovsky's relationship with Nadezhda von Meck). A good bio will show whether or not such relationships exist; if there is no sign of any relationships, you should probably engage the article's editors on the subject.

I almost always rate down bios of living composers because they lack personal details and critical commentary (they're often basic promotional bios). My brief read of the Haarsma page indicates no critical commentary on his work (but it is definitely more than just a promotional bio). Where are the critical reviews and popularity indicators of his work?

- Magic♪piano 21:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We need to face the fact that personal details are sometimes unavailable or scanty, and often irrelevant. Some subjects take great care to keep their personal lives private, and the press don't intrude if they are not front-page celebs (mainly politicians, sports stars and movie stars). Some aspects of personal lives are relevant to the activities that make people notable, like Tchaikovsky's relationship with Nadezhda von Meck. Others are not, for example Adolf Anderssen had no personal life to speak of and the details of Wilhelm Steintitz' first family are sad but relevant only to the extent that they illustrate the poverty in which he lived all his life. Rafael Nadal's uncle Tony is important as Rafa's coach, but no sports article I've seen has mentioned his parents or any siblings. OTOH much of the family life of Venus Williams and Serena Williams is obviously relevant. Friends may be more important than family, as in the case of Johannes Brahms' friendship with Robert Schumann and Clara Schumann, and his support of the music of Antonin Dvorak. The real test is the impact on the career(s) that made the subject notable. --Philcha (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a confusion here between good articles and Good Articles? Surely an article can be "good" without meeting the GA criteria? Doesn't make it a "bad" article though. The job of a reviewer is simply to come to a decision about whether or not the article meets the GA criteria. Not whether it's any good or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why there is A-class, though not every wikiproject uses A-class.じんない 22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The trouble is that "a confusion here between good articles and Good Articles" makes "Good Article" a Humpty Dumpty term - "a word means what I say it means". In any case the GA criteria say nothing specifically about personal lives. The nearest they get is "broad in its coverage", which is less than FA's "comprehensive". --Philcha (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To turn your Humpty Dumpty analogy back on you, just because you say so doesn't make it so. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you were just teasing me, Malleus. I mean that "Good Article" should bear a close resemblance to the ordinary-language meaning of "good", and that the GA criteria should just be a means to that end. --Philcha (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In the same way that biographies ought to at least bear a passing resemblance to biographies do you mean? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Touché! However the real issue is whether an article about a person needs to be a full bio. For most of the persons about whom WP has articles, the personal life is largely irrelevant to the activities that make the subjects notable. If an article does a good job of covering these activities, their effects and the influences that may have motivated or shaped them, IMO that's "broad coverage". I'd leave completism where it belongs, at FAC. --Philcha (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about lists and GA

I am not very familiar with lists. The article Septimus Heap seems to be a serious of lists more than a fully realized artice. Is the a Good List Nomination and Good List Criteria? I am not sure what to recomment to the article's author as the best way to procede. Or should it be failed because so much of it is a list? Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this should become a full-fledged discussion. I've always wondered why lists can't be good articles, after all, there are list that appear to be A-class, even though they're not listed as A-class on the talk page. Anyway, I think that lists should be allowed to become GAs. Ceran^→//forge 22:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles containing fleshed out, embedded lists like Septimus Heap seem to me to meet the GA criteria. But straightforward "List of ..." articles are better dealt with at FLC. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with good uses of embedded lists - in fact I probably use them more than most. But the lists in Septimus Heap are too comprehensive. I'd include only regular characters in an article about the whole series (so far), so for example I'd omit most of the "Other characters" - although I'd think Alther Mella, DomDaniel, Beetle Beetle and possibly Marcellus Pye have important enough roles in multiple stories to merit places in the "main" list.

I'm not sure the list of places in "Universe" is much use without a map.

The article says nothing about Septimus' Young Army days. The survival skills and tactical alertness he learned as Boy wyyz (can't remember the actual 4-digit number) are sometimes life-savers.

The "Reception" section looks very thin. Among other things, I'd expect it to include a Metacritic rating in order to present an exteranl selection of reviewers' comments for greater objectivity. I'd like, if possible, to see a comment that the Septimaus Heap books don't adopt older viewpoints as the series progressesm, which the Harry Potter books noticably do from Goblet of Fire onwards with all their teenage angst.

The prose is a bit shaky.

Bottom line: it strikes me as not quite a GA, but could be raised to GA standard in a week by a determined and resourceful editor. --Philcha (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortuanately, I aready passed it. At first I thought the article was hopeless and left a long list of thisngs, but as soon as a learned it was a list, then my standards went down. I don't know what the GA requirements for a list are. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The article isn't a list, and even if had been that's no excuse to let your standards slip. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you feel it was passed wrongly you can always bring it to a GAR. As for lists in general, I know for fictional works there would probably be a flood of entries. Most wikirprojects don't put character lists for GA nomination and usually just end up having most stall at B-class.じんない 02:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Where have I expressed any opinion at all on this article's GA review? My comment was addressed to the attitude of the reviewer—"as soon as a learned it was a list, then my standards went down"—not to the result of the review. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Was he not replying to Mattisse? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse was the reviewer who passed the article. Why would (s)he feel it necessary to take the article to GAR a few minutes later? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My fault for misunderstanding then. Sorry.じんない 08:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(←)We discussed something similar recently, and decided that GA was not ready to adopt lists (not that we shouldn't reopen the discussion if necessary). Having said that, I agree that the article isn't really a list, although formatted in places like one, and shouldn't be subject to lower standards. If Matisse wants to bring it to GAR to get a second opinion, I don't see a problem with that; it's as good a place as any to double-check a review. No fault, no blame, no big deal - we can fix it ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well said, EyeSerene, I totally agree. --Philcha (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding Septimus Heap, sorry, I meant my standards went down in that many of my complaints about th article pertained to a typical prose article and not to one with numerous embedded lists. In promoting it, I was going by the quote above by Malleus: "Articles containing fleshed out, embedded lists like Septimus Heap seem to me to meet the GA criteria." That is why I passed it, as I am not clear on the criteria in this situation. If I was wrong, I am willing to bring it to GAR. However, I would ask someone to help me list the reasons why it fails GA and therefore should go to GAR (other than my inexperience with an article full of embedded lists). If someone would help me list the reasons for GAR, I am willing to list it. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your review is pretty good, but there are definitely a few improvements that could still be made. I think Philcha's comments above could be helpful with that. I hesitate to speak for Malleus, but I get the impression he was making a general comment about listy articles being valid GA candidates, rather than this specific article meeting the criteria as it stood. EyeSerene^talk 15:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking generally, yes. I just glanced quickly at the article to look at the lists. I didn't look closely enough to have an opinion on the review. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Septimus Heap books is that, unlike the Harry Potter books, they really are kids' books - I've read 4, and they certainly don't have the emotional depth of the Harry Potter series. So reviewing an article about the series can be difficult if you are not involved in articles about kids books. I'd start any review process by looking for GAs or FAs about children's books, to form some idea of what should be expected in a such an article, re both content and sources.

However I think there are problems in Septimus Heap:

• The prose is rather immature.
• There's a shortage of objective sources - too many have personal or commercial reasons to be enthusiastic about the books. Google (for "angie sage" review) got me only one lead, Times Online (see below.) I could find nothing relevant on Metacritic for Magyk, Flyte, Physik or Queste. Times Online lists a couple of reviews and an article about plans to make one or more films of the books. It would be worth checking the sites of the other "quality" British papers - Independent, Guardian, Telegraph - to see if they have reviews. I have not tried Google Books or Google Scholar.
• I noticed one important but unsourced statement, "The series received mostly positive appreciation from the critic". There may be others.
• The list of characters is far too long, as I said above.
• The list of locations does nothing for me.
• The obvious comparison is with the Harry Potter series and should be included if at all possible. IIRC one of the Times Online articles quoted Angie Sage as saying the Harry Potter series convinced her there was demand for kids' / young adults' fantasy. After reading 4 of the Septimus Heap books I've seen no sign of the development that's visible in the Harry Potter series, where the tone changes as the main characters grow up. --Philcha (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The one time I nominated an article for GAR, I was accused of not assuming good faith by the article's editor and this GAR was even listed by a couple of editors as a charge in an RFC against me (even though I had done nothing improper and had consulted another GA editor for advice first) and this continues to be pursued as an open charge against me today, so I am very reluctant to become mixed up in a GAR again. Do you suggest I do it, using the reasons you give? Would that be safe for me? What you recommend? Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt about your good faith; you were the one that brought your concerns here in the first place because you wanted to do the best you could for the article. I can appreciate that the author(s) might be a bit put out, and you don't need to look far up this page to realise that we aren't always successful in bringing editors along with us, but we can only try :P As long as you're tactful about and emphasise that GAR is about improving rather than delisting articles, things should be fine. However, if you'd rather step back, I'm sure one of us can make the nomination instead. EyeSerene^talk 18:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, you want to stay clear of difficult situations: Life's Too Short.

GA doesn't review lists; editors can submit to FLC if they wish. But, there are lists, and there are lists. Sometimes, the distinction is blurred. You asked in the right place first, and community members advised fleshed out, embedded lists could constitute a GA. As EyeSerene said: No fault, no blame, no big deal. If it turns out on closer inspection the page cannot be a GA because of its nature, that's all right. You acted with best endeavors and you did your best. And that's all anyone can ask of you.

Taking it to GAR for a second opinion sounds fine. If it turns out the article doesn't come under the auspices of GA, your review feedback will still have helped further improve the article. That can only be good for Wikipedia.

If anybody, down the line, takes issue with your having taken it to GAR, please feel free to refer them to this comment. They can raise their concern with me, and I'll make sure to give it the attention it deserves. –Whitehorse1 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible for someone else to take it to GAR? I am extremely fearful, as my RFC, including a section on my taking an article to GAR just after it was passed by another, is still open, so this one would be even more likely to cause problems, as it was passed by me! (Almost all editors, except the article writer, on that GAR stood up for me, but it did not prevent it being held against me, so referring others to your post here will not help me, I am afraid.) Also, I am not familiar with the requirements of lists. I have never reviewed an article before with so many embedded lists. I should have looked carefully at the article first, before I signed up to review it. I made a very big mistake. I have no confidence in myself regarding passing judgment on this article now. Further, I am not clear what the outcome of all the statements made above are, regarding the standards for the embedded lists. (Many of the prose issues I had with the article do not necessarily apply to lists.) In short, I am confused. I do not know what the standards are regarding this particular article. I have no faith in myself now, so I think it would be a mistake for me to take it to GAR. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked at the talk page if moving the lists to sub-articles would be acceptable - if that happens i would say this is a fair enough GA. If it doesn't happen in a few days, i'll happily do the GAR submission.

On the overall point, You could consider asking at FLC before GAN listy reviews? If GAR fails a list because it is too listy, then it may be possible for it to pass as a FL (assuming all formatting etc is good, this has happened in the past). If FLC fail it because it is too prose-y, then there is a problem - likely that the embedded lists are too trivial and should be cut for a truly good GA. I've asked about this before at WP:Awards, and the consensus seemed to be that the only way to tell is to submit for both and see what reviewers say. The idea to write a guideline got no consensus. I think that if Good List ever occur, then they are best dealt with at FLC - but if they are just lesser quality FLs, then they are not needed, as FL criteria are not much greater than GA.Yobmod (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've completed the GAR nomination per Mattisse's request. The reassessment page is here - I hope Philcha doesn't mind my plagiarism (I did attribute!). Any interested reviewers are welcome to participate ;) EyeSerene^talk 23:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that this article would pass muster as a list. The majority of the article is prose. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Slow/unresponsive reviewer

Hi,

I'm currently having Live & Kicking reviewed by User:MacGyverMagic, who first indicated he would review it on Jan 29. He took three days to start reviewing the page, and each and every time I have responded to a concern, I've had to ping him on his talk page to get him to respond. Now it seems he is ignoring me completely: see the thread. I don't want to have to seem like a pest, but as a reviewer, he should take some responsibility to respond to my replies to his concerns, and not simply ignore me. What he's doing is discourteous and rude, as he's still clearly editing, so it's not as if he's busy IRL. I'd really like to concentrate on another article, but can't until this one is out of the way, and it's off my mind. The fact he is taking unnecessarily ages about it, ignoring me on his talk page, posting points of the review on my talk page instead of the review page, despite me asking him not to, has brought me here to ask for opinions of other reviewers. If he can't be bothered to finish what he started, can someone else please finish the review, so I can move on? Thanks, Majorly talk 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Three days is a blink of an eye when your my age :-) Seriously, many reviewers like to read the whole article carefully before leaving any comments, so a pause between offering to review and leaving an initial review is common. The article was put "on hold" on February 1. The nominal time period for a hold is 7 days. Some reviewers prefer to leave nominators to it and return to the review in 7 days; there is nothing discourteous about that. Pinging them repeatedly before that time may not be helpful. I suggest you wait until Sunday. Geometry guy 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is now moot as Mgm has passed the review. I'll have to learn to be a little more patient :) Majorly talk 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS X (2nd call)

A while ago I posted a request for a 2nd opinion about Talk:Mac OS X/GA2. My concerns are that the article is "insider-oriented" to a degree that makes it uselss to readers who are not already Mac enthusiasts (i.e. coverage is inadequate and off-target), and that this plus heavy reliance on Apple-related sources throws doubt on the article's neutrality. As it stands I would fail the artcile on these grounds, and there would probably be vociferous complaints.

I would much appreciate a 2nd opinion on the issues I've raised above, as I'm aware that this is much more of a judgement call than the typical GA pass / fail. --Philcha (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look, and pitch in, but I don't think I'll do a full review. Gary King (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary King - I wasn't expecting a full review, just a second opinion on the coverage and neturality issues. --Philcha (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at those particular issues yet, but I brought up a few other issues on the GAN page. I'm using a Mac right now, so the article interests me more than others. Gary King (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Poor buggers, having to face two GA reviwers! --Philcha (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a list?

Jutsu (Naruto) - thought I would check before I take another step. The article's editor says it is not. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a list. If it was considered for a featured process, it would be FAC and not FLC. Gary King (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, EyeSerene suggested I ask and you have answered. So thanks! (Although it is still not clear what the difference is.) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked a similar question at FLC about Controlled substances in Oregon. I think the answer is a featured list can have a bunch of prose at the top, but an some point it needs a semi-bare list that doesn't have prose. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why some sort of definition (or rule out criteria) can't appear somewhere in the Good article criteria? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how contentious the criteria page is, but something along the line of "GAs may have prose and lists of prose, but if your article contains a bare list without prose, the take it to FL". It's all pretty arbritrary. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not "contains" but "your article's primary subject is a bare list without prose". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

But that wasn't true of the article I passed that was accused of being a list. I think I could distinguish the primary subject being "a bare list without prose" from an article with some embedded lists. What do you think of my most recent question, Jutsu (Naruto)? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a "list", but each entry is prose. Looking at some examples to try and find the line, 30 Rock (season 1) is a FL, and each entry contains some prose, but not as much as Jutsu (that's what you're talking about, right?). Then something like List of Boston Red Sox managers has no prose inside the list. To muddy the waters more, Smallville (season 1) is an FA. I think it's more because it ran the FA gauntlet than the fact that it has more prose than the 30 Rock one, but I'm not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you are saying (bottom line)...? —Mattisse (Talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Smallville (season 1) FAC, it seems like a very "iffy" pass. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(redent) I don't have a bottom line. Obviously it's hard to say, becuase I wanted to take my article to FL, where the passes seem easy, and you get a gold star. ;-) This could never be added to the criteria, but it seems somewhere around "more than five entries, each with less than 4 sentences of prose". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hum, ok, I'll consider that, which at least offers something concrete. I gather FAC has no hard and fast rules either. I guess your offering here is the hardest and fastest I will find! Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 05:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The right question to ask is not "Is this a list?", but "Should this be a list?". For example Septimus Heap, to which you refer indirectly, should never have been a list, and the presence of list-like elements was a defect. Likewise this article has more to say about Jutsu than could be said in a list. Geometry guy 08:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

award for backlog cleaning

• Here's an award:

To Ling.Nut for meritorious aid in the GA Backlog Sweeps. Tally ho!

• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Heh. I think that we have the awards for the GAN backlog elimination drive figured out, but maybe that could be used to the GA maintenance sweeps, since we don't really have anything for those at this time. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

    It is a pity that Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima isn't PD. That would be perfect for the Ling.Nut treatment. Geometry guy 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

New elimination drive?

Would anyone be interested in another GA backlog elimination drive if I were to set one up? -Drilnoth (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would to Jason Rees (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I've got four articles up, so I would commit to at least four articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay; I'll look into setting one up sometime this week. -Drilnoth (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd give it a try. DiverseMentality 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Not me. I'll probably take it easy while the "drive" goes on. Let me know when it starts. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably sit this one out because I'm so busy at work right now. If it does go forward, however, it would be good to make sure that it is well-publicized. I reviewed 58 last time, but I only found out about it by chance. It would be very helpful to have more than 9 participants this time. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mabye use WP:CENT? At least for the setting up stage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kinda like Mattisse and Gary are saying, I think this will only be a true success if we can bring in people who don't reqularly do reviews, otherwise we burn them out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Good ideas; I'll look for some good places to advertise once I have the basic page setup. Would running it from February 13 to March 13 work, with prize barnstars handed out at the end of March so that on-hold articles finished after the 13th are counted? -Drilnoth (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got the basic page set up here. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

←I'd be interested in participating and know that with rewards involved, it would be a great opportunity to on-board some new reviewers. I'm not sure how many people watchpage this talk page since there are so many inconsequential edits on the article page, so getting the word out would be key. You might consider posting the challenge on the reward board. --Eustress (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If I have time. I have recently resumed GA reviewing after a long absence. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Great!

(to Eustress): Good idea about the reward board; I'll mention something there. I've already put a notice at the top of the GAN page itself, so maybe that will help. I also asked if something could be mentioned in the Wikipedia Signpost. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re getting more reviewers, see User:Philcha/Sandbox#My GA review "template". --Philcha (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Mattisse and Gary. Besides, I don't like award schemes anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If it wouldn't just lead certain editors to nominate a whole bunch more articles again, I might be inclined. As is, I'm too busy to focus on emptying Lake Michigan with a teaspoon. Once submissions are reasonably throttled, then I might be more willing to work on a backlog. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(responding to Malleus): The awards scheme is just there as an incentive to get people who might not otherwise do so to review some articles, and it really shouldn't be considered the centerpoint of the drive.

(responding to Jclemens): Has that happened in the past? I wasn't aware. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How about doing sweeps in the meantime? We desperately need new blood for that. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got an idea on how to redesign the sweeps so that they might attract more interest... would there be any interest in reformatting how it's done? I'm thinking that we could list all of the current good articles by the date they were promoted and then continually go through them to make sure that older ones are still high-quality. The current system looks kind of confusing to me. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think the GA backlog is bad, have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#The_.22Queue_and_QF.22_option - they're tying themselves in knots, and the "points" system they're discussing is so complex and riddled with gotchas that it certainly deters me from reviwing or submitting. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I stopped reading after the 5th comments. Way too confusing. So Drilnoth, what's your idea on redesigning the sweeps? Let us hear about it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll get a page written up with my redesign idea, probably be the weekend. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

They have something similar at FAC: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. Personally, I think that is a little too complicated but the FAs by date thing at the bottom is quite nice and I think close to Drilnoth's suggestion. I'd be very interested to see their proposal.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's my idea: User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 2. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Manchester Mark 1

I am bring this matter here because I am deeply unhappy about the way in which my nomination of Manchester Mark 1, an early stored-program computer, is being handled. The review can be found here and a personal remark made by the reviewer can be found here. It appears to me that it would be considerably easier to get this article through FAC than through GAN.

I would appreciate an outside perspective, as I realize that it's quite possible that I may have become too attached to this article, and consequently unable to see things as clearly as others might. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well at this point in time the reviewer does not appear to have reached a final decision on pass/fail/hold. This is an article that I would have happily reviewed at WP:GAN. I am currently reviewing two WP:GAN articles which I would like to complete in the next 24 hours. After that I will be doing almost no work on wikipedia for the next two weeks. If you and the reviewer cannot come to an agreement in the next two weeks and/or it is failed and you choose to resubmit it to WP:GAN then I will happily look at it. But, I can't really help before week beginning 23/2/09 at the earliest.Pyrotec (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer, much appreciated. My point though was that this is not a review but a personally motivated witch hunt. When this article is failed I will take it to FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I really do not understand Malleus's last comment:

• re "personally motivated witch hunt", what motive would I have for that? We've had no (previous) conflicts and I've seen enoug to know that you're a highly-respected editor and reviewer.
• re "When this article is failed, ..." you know I err on the side of working pretty hard to get articles to pass, despite not compromising on coverage or WP:V.
• As for "a personal remark made by the reviewer can be found here", it was minor joke on an ambiguity in the phrasing of your preceding comment. In fact your preceding remark (about programming in binary), the fact that I understood it and some of my other comments reveal that we have both been involved with computers for rather a long time. --Philcha (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Witch hunt" was too strong, I apologise for that. But the article that you want isn't the article that I want. The issue quite simply is, does this article meet the GA criteria? Not is it the article that you would have written. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, we had a Olivetti P6060, bought from new in 1979 or 1980. Nice machine, twin 8" floppy disks, a paper tape reader & BASIC.Pyrotec (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a summary of what I think the main differences are between us - Malleus, please comment if you think there are errors or omissions in this list.

• Perspective, i.e. what points are important / unimportant in an encyclopedia. I've invited Fatuorum to discuss this and have given him a nice juicy target by summarising my own thoughts at Talk:Manchester_Mark_1/GA1#Perspective.
• Lack of clarity through not separating aspects of the subject and making them explicit. IMO this first arose in the "Background" section of the last version before the review. IMO the current version still does not sufficiently separate and explain for the benefit of non-specialists the significance and implications of using Williams tubes (faster & cheaper than the alternative, mercury delay lines, and did not require such precise control of the computer room's temperature; inital doubts about the tubes' reliability) and of stored programs (something we all take completely for granted to-day). I also still find the stages of the project and the objectives at each stage confusing.
• I think the article at the start of the review and at present understates the significance of the Manchester Mark 1 and of its predecessor the SSEM (aka "Baby") in the evolution of computers.

If other members of Wikiproject GA think I've got it badly wrong, I'm willing to back out of this review, as I know both Malleus and I have better things to do than continue wrangling like this. --Philcha (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

PS I apologise for the offence unintentionally given by my attempted joke about the long history we both have with computers. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with Philcha. My background was DOS (or MSDOS), BASIC, Fortran 77, Pascal and I have used a teletype and punched paper tape for input, so I have sympathy with identifying primarily with readers with no programming experience, but I have no interest in "cushy development environments - e.g. Javascript, VB or Delphi on the client side; MS ASP, PHP, Cold Fusion, Java, etc. on servers; C / C++". So I don't see why the article should be distorted to fit those needs. Producing a whole load of defects - no graphical operating system, no CD-rom or DVD-player, no spreadsheets, comes under the category of "stating the bleeding obvious". I would award the article GA-status now. It would be great if I could find some typos or grammatical errors, especially as "MF" is the nominator, but I have better things with to do with my time than hunting for them; and I'm in favour of adding worthwhile improvements. So in summary, "It should be written for non-specialists" is probably the only thing that I agree with in your "Perspective".Pyrotec (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Malleus repeated at Talk:Manchester Mark 1/GA1 his request that I fail the artcile, and I have regretfully complied.

Pyrotec, the point on which you agree, "It should be written for non-specialists", is the key one, and I think most of the rest follows from there. I only mentioned modern programming / scripting environments to illustrate the gulf between programming on a modern computer (or the mainframe ranges introduced since the early 1960s) and programming on the Mark 1 or, AFAIK, any other stored-program computer from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s. --Philcha (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now opened a community review here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Build a GA" service

Is it just me, or does it seem like so many of these GACs are nowhere near being GAs, and it seems as if the nominators expect the reviewers to do all the work to take it to GA level. This also seems a complaint at FAC, although I think the articles are usually of a higher quality. Rarely, if ever, have I been able to pass an article without making minor, or (more commonly) major changes.

I usually don't fail an article unless the nominator doesn't respond, but sometimes I wonder whether I should write out these huge long reviews, and do it three times over to catch all the mistakes, just to have it pass. On the other hand, I could just give some advisory comments, and just let it fail. A puzzling conondrum. Anyone else have this feeling?

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 15:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No article has passed FAC without tons of work. If one seems to pass FAC with flying colors, it's only because a ridiculous amount of time was previously spent reviewing, proof-reading, copy-editing, etc. If less work is spent reviewing prior to an FAC nom, then of course more work will be needed during the process. GA is oftentimes (not always) a crucial step before FA, and sometimes articles (and their writers) suffer after a poor or limited GA review -- how many times have we seen "I'm nominating this article for Featured because it just passed Good Article today and the reviewer said it was awesome and didn't need anything else"? At the same time, many new editors simply give up because they received a three sentence review that basically says "This needs too much work, so I have to fail it. Here are three or four examples of how to fix it." Yes, some articles require more work than others. Yes, reviewing is time consuming. However, I would rather waste my time writing an extensive review, knowing that the information is saved for posterity on the talk page in case someone will be interested in the future, than demoralize or give false hope to inexperienced editors. María (habla conmigo) 15:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What you say is true (and I'm not trying to see I cop out on my own reviews). However, I'm mostly wondering what is the line between a straight fail, and working really hard to get to a GA? Is there one (i.e. work on every article, and don't fail any)? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)3

Personally, I'd only quick-fail an article if it is obvious that it can't be made a GA anytime soon. Otherwise, I make minor edits if needed before passing or, if there are major problems that can probably still be resolved, I put it on hold for improvements. I think that just when to put an article on hold as opposed to quick-failing or fixing it up yourself is really just personal preference. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Every article is different, and every reviewer is, as well, so I don't think we can work with absolutes here. My personal philosophy is that if it fulfills the quickfail criteria (no refs, for example), then of course you don't need to waste your time pointing out every grammatical mistake. Some articles are worth the blood, sweat and tears, but again, it's entirely subjective. I spent quite a bit of time helping the author of George Bernard Shaw through the idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia MOS, but for me that was so worth it. I mean, come on! It's Shaw! María (habla conmigo) 16:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly that article was vandalised a couple of days ago, but nobody seems to have noticed.[11] The effort to keep articles at GA can often be greater than the effort to get them there in the first place. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I view the GA process as more of a collaboration than a strict evaluation. Consider this: our goal is to build an encyclopedia. To some extent, there's recognition of good work involved, but that's not the real benefit of GA. When I take an article through GA, I almost always learn something from the reviewer. When I review a GA, I sincerely hope I help teach the nominator something about what I consider a GA to be. Thus, it's a collaborative, learning/teaching process. In each reviewer/nominator pair, there's a chance to teach and learn, so that by taking a bunch of articles through GA, I learn what other evaluators want, and by evaluating a ton of articles, I get to give my best advice on article building to a ton of different editors. Once there's nothing more to be learned, (that is, when I've mastered all the GA expectations handily) then maybe it's time to move on to FA space. In essence, we're training world-class encyclopedia article writers at GA, one review at a time. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of comments here with which I agree: "it seems as if the nominators [often] expect the reviewers to do all the work", "every article is different, and every reviewer is, as well", "In essence, we're training world-class encyclopedia article writers at GA, one review at a time", etc.

However we need to do something about the quality of incoming articles so that reviewers can review more articles per month. The long waiting time frustrates editors and sometimes leads to a review starting when the nominators / editors are not as available (I just passed Rufous-crowned Sparrow after appealing for bird enthusiasts to rally round, as the nominator had been inactive since 31 Jan). I recently suggested producing a "Writing GAs for Dummies" guide that will do the job over 90% of the time, is easier to understand than the maze of policies and guidelines, and can fit on one page - and that should be supplemented by a list of e.g the last 10-20 GAs per topic.

Let's build a list of practical proposals, prioritise them and then implement them. --Philcha (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As perhaps our recent experience demonstrates, having examples to follow of good articles in a particular genre can make it much easier on both nominator and reviewer. The first GA in any particular field to some extent establishes a benchmark. I think was Geometry guy who was recently asking for examples of good GA reviews, which should probably be resuscitated. But perhaps in conjunction with a more easily accessible and finer grained set of examples of different types of articles. For instance, not just journalism, but local newspapers, national newspapers, magazines ... say, with links to the articles in their GA state and also the state they were nominated in, along with the review. Would be good examples for both nominators and reviewers.

What about producing a checklist of things a nominator should check before submitting an article for review?

In reply to jclemens, I don't think it's possible to master all the GA expectations, as each article introduces subtle new themes and requires judgement. More importantly I think that in the ideal world every reviewer would be active at both FAC and GAN. Things learnt at FAC can also be useful at GAN, and in your own writing; GAN isn't a training ground for FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, FAC still scares me, and I have 6 GAs and 40+ reviews. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC scares me as well, that's part of the thrill. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:WIAGA is a checklist, but the problem is it refers to policies and guidelines, which refer to further policies and guidelines, etc., etc. I think one page midway between WP:WIAGA and the policies and guidelines, with a few practical tips (e.g. "use Dispenser's Link Checker before nominating") would help us in "training world-class encyclopedia article writers at GA, one review at a time". --Philcha (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:WIAGA is a checklist aimed at reviewers, doesn't help nominators much. I was thinking of something more along the lines of your practical tips idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what the quick fail criteria is for?じんない 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The quick fail criteria are written for reviewers, not nominators. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "Writing your first GA" essay. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We've already got Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to try my hand at WP:WYFGA and see how it goes. I hope it doesn't seem too much like "gaming" the system. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else is interested enough to have a go. Some pages you could mine for ideas:

• User:Philcha/Sandbox/Producing a Good Article - a draft I started and offered for comments, but no-one responded.
• User:Jacklee/Writing good articles has a light, almost chatty style that I will be helpful to new(ish) editors.
• Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles - good content, but wrong title and a little bureaucratic in tone, with too many WP:acronyms.
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles, that Tim Vickers mentioned - good content, but IMO too long for a newbies' guide. --Philcha (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks. I'm offline for a while, so anyone can feel free to add/integrate those into the article without edit conflicts. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how long Jclemens meant by "a while", so I filled out most (?) of the gaps in User:Philcha/Sandbox/Producing a Good Article. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot that shows cleanup templates for each GAC

I'm thinking about implementing a bot that will go through each GAC listed, and then make a list of any and all cleanup templates that listed in the articles. Does anyone think this will be helpful? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful, and I can't see what it would hurt (other than leading to possibly a bunch of demotions). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is easily doable via WP:AWB's listmaking options. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• This was made by finding articles linked to GAN and comparing it to articles in the Cleanup category. There are a couple false positives; that could be easily fixed by comparing to Category:Good article nominees instead (which is what I should have done). However, even the less-accurate method reduces search time down to a couple minutes, mainly spent waiting for AWB to crunch through the lists.

• Alprazolam
• Australia
• Thorbjørn Jagland
• Marilyn Manson
• Schindler's List
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I thought it would be thousands long. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh Peregrine, we're talking about GA nominations, not those that have already passed :) Gary King (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's only cleanup; I dunno if it includes disputed, POV, etc. There's probably a master categor for all such problems...?

BUT while we're at it, I found article that are NOT ISTED at GAN but have the GAN template on their talk:

• ABC (medicine)
• American crocodile
• Arnold Schwarzenegger
• Chemetco
• Christmas in the post-War United States
• Jan Kaplický
• Medical director
• Superman Returns
• The Nightingale
• Triage
• Two probs to be investigated....Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No need? Oh well, good try. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Superman Returns is my fault - I failed it but left loose ends in the "paperwork" -sorry! At least it helped to show the usefulness of these search tools. --Philcha (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to do this for current GAs? That might give some indications of the number that need urgent attention.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Doing it for GAs would be easy, but I have to go to church. Back in a few hours. Don't you have WP:AWB? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I used to, but found it really distracting so turned it off.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Jan Kaplický was my fault. I failed it but neglected to change the talk page template. I have fixed that now. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts

Hello everyone! Kohlberg Kravis Roberts was recently passed as a GA. I took a quick look at this article and saw quite a few things that would have made me think exactly the opposite - short lead, major lack of citations, etc. Am I being too picky, or should I take this to GAR? Just wanting to grab a few opinions before I decide which way to jump... Dana boomer (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm new around here, but I wouldn't have passed it with that lead, and a quick look at a section "RJR Nabisco and the Barbarians at the Gate" shows it has many dollar values and dates being given that need specific citations (at least page numbers of the book being discussed). Sasata (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing. Swathes uncited, improperly formatted references, poor lead - list goes on. Needs an urgent GAR and a note on the reviewers talk page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The number or density of citations doesn't matter per se, but here there many many sentences screaming for citation, such as "KKR closed out the 1970s completing the public-to-private buyout of Houdaille Industries in 1979, probably the largest take-private of a public company to that point." According to whom? In addition to the above issues, the prose is unencyclopedic, reading in places like a press release. The "Investment strategy" section is particularly weak, describing what the company "will" or "often" does. Geometry guy 13:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently, Apollo Management, another nomination from User:Urbanrenewal, is on hold. There were a fair number of style improvements necessary, and also the lead was rather short. With only a quick glance at Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, I would have though it needed similar improvements. However, Urbanrenewal is an amazing guy at making quick improvements to articles, so I wonder if it could be done 'off the record'. Then again, perhaps GAR is the way to go... Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be perfect for a individual GAR (aiming for a "keep" outcome, if what you say pans out). I don't mind doing it if Dana boomer (or someone else) doesn't. It is better to have a thorough review in the article history (the GAN was indeed a "quick pit stop"!). Geometry guy 13:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, everyone, thanks for the comments. I'll open an individual GAR on the article in a few minutes - anyone else who would like to is, as always, welcome to comment there. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Update - I've opened the individual GAR, posted my comments, and dropped a note on the original reviewer's talk page. As I said above, please feel free to comment on the GAR for anything that I may have missed. Dana boomer (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Being "broad", even when there are no references

I'm currently reviewing the article about cricket player Dick Pollard. Among the usual things to fix, the concern is that the article, as you can see, says nothing about his personal life. When I raised it on the review page, the nominator said that "This kind of information is pretty much unavailable." I sympathize, as I know in other articles there a simply a dearth of references talking about a person's personal life. However, leaving something like that out for this article means leaving out a huge part of his life, and I do not believe that satisfies the requirement to be broad in coverage. So, can I have anyone else's opinion? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 05:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. A biographical article needs to cover both the subject's personal and public life to be broad. Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• I agree too. I'm more than a bit surprised as well that no date is given for his death in 1985. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Although I agree to some degree, I enjoy playing devil's advocate: what about historical figures (such as notable folk from Medieval England or Ancient Greece) about whom nothing may be known of their personal life? If I were to rewrite Sappho tomorrow -- very tempting -- and bring it to GAC, should it be held to such standards? Of course, contemporary people typically have better coverage due to the media machine(s), but that may not be the case. I had such a time trying to find something, anything on Robert Sterling Yard (GA, FA) other than his workaholic tendencies. María (habla conmigo) 21:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Short answer: horses for courses. It's rather unlikely that any further information will come to light concerning Plato's life for instance, but someone who died in 1985? It's pretty hard to believe that nothing was ever published about his personal life, wouldn't you agree? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Are you're saying that an article that is (theoretically) otherwise inclusive should be shortlisted for GA until a reliable, tell-all biography is published, goodness knows when? If so, then no, I can't say I agree. I think an article that is "broad" in its coverage is all we can ask. To me, "broad" does not mean "everything" -- GAs don't have to be comprehensive like FAs, they just have to cover the "main aspects of the topic". María (habla conmigo) 21:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The guideline touches on the topic a bit; but yeah, when approaching articles it's practical to tailor that approach. –Whitehorse1 21:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• What is this "theory" of which you speak? I'm simply suggesting that a different interpretation of "broad" has to be applied to those who died in 348 BC from that applied to those who died in 1985. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe this discussion misses the point. I agree that the article should refer to family issues, but they are not the "main aspect" of the subject according to the GA criteria. Brief reference to marriage and/or children would probably suffice. If the nominator can't find this information for a notable subject, they probably haven't tried hard enough.

However this is not the main issue: the article relies almost entirely on primary source material recorded at www.cricketarchive.com, yet it engages in analysis. Unsourced analysis is original research (by synthesis). Two examples:

• Injuries to Sibbles and to Frank Booth gave Pollard even greater opportunity in 1935, and he played in 23 Championship matches and was awarded his county cap.[8] Whose analysis is this? The source presents only the data.
• Pollard was out of the reckoning for Test places in the hot summer of 1947 but responded with one of his best county seasons. For Lancashire in Championship matches, he took 131 wickets, with the next best total being 74. In all matches, he took 144 wickets at an average just below 20 runs per wicket, the second best figures of his career.[11] The source is just raw data. Geometry guy 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's true. I was just responding to what I perceived to be the general point behind the question. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I believe are more important sources in the article than cricketarchive are the Wisden almanacs which usually give the kind of analysis seen in the article. I believe the problem arises from the sources not being duplicated through the article enough. I cannot state this with authority however, as User:Johnlp is responsible for most of the content of the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not actually synthesis, the prose reports just haven't been attached. CA isn't a primary source though, they weren't the official record-keeper for the match. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is primary source material: raw data. A copy of raw data is still a primary source. Geometry guy 08:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Request

Since I will not longer being doing any GA reviews, I am requesting that someone take over three GAR that I have started but can not finish.

• American popular music - I did not start a formal GAR yet but I notified them on the talk page that the references are messed up in the article in a way I cannot figure out. Perhaps someone here can figure out the problem. Also, the issue of the article's organization needs to be addressed. See Talk:American_popular_music#References.2Fnotes_need_cleanup
• 1918 flu pandemic - Just begun and not completed Talk:1918 flu pandemic/GA1
• Green marketing - Talk:Green marketing/GA1

If no one wants to complete there, perhaps there is a way of just ending them, or discontinuing them, as is. I cannot work on them further.

I have completed approximately 150 GA reviews in the last few months and have immensely enjoyed my interactions with the article editors. I am deeply appreciative of my opportunity to work with them. As I have seen them grow, I know that they will continue to contribute in the future. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, and thanks for doing those GA reviews. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

2005 UEFA Champions League Final

Could someone have a look at this article for me please, as the user who reviewed the article [12] has not been active since 5 February when he reviwed the article any help would be greatly appreciated. NapHit (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ruth Martin (Lassie)/1

Mattisse started this, but she is no longer active. What's the next step? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a community reassessment. Can reviewers please add their comments to the reassessment? Geometry guy 11:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge GAN & PR

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Featured_articles/Science_FAC_symposium#BOLD_suggestion contains a proposal to merge GA review and Peer Review (and FA review, but I think that's a total non-starter). Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Featured_articles/Science_FAC_symposium#BOLD_suggestion. --Philcha (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage commenting more generally on ways to improve content review of science articles. The symposium is a worthwhile endeavour which has been on my watchlist since inception. That particular thread, however, is an obvious non-starter. Geometry guy 21:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider the aforementioned "proposal" to really be a legitimate proposal to merge GA & PR. Rather, some editors seem to be using an effort to improve science articles on Wikipedia as an avenue to express their discontent in the review processes we have set up, and trying to change the topic to convince people that the review processes are part of the problem with science articles. Said group need to either decide to focus on improving science articles, or break off their discussion to propose merging GA with PR. Though I think the latter discussion will go no where. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Article was removed from the list without a review

I had nominated Popotan for a review over a month ago and it was finally put up to be reviewed several days ago and never was. It was removed from the list without a review being done at all nor any comments on the talk page about why it was removed.じんない 05:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you just put it back? I don't think anyone would begrudge you if you put it in same position is was in before. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Readded with the same date. Since it seemed the reviewer removed it (not sure why) I did not readd their name.じんない 06:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a mistake, I got a bit tied up and unsigned myself and deleted the main thing as well. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nephew relationship relevance

In all articles I have written, if a nephew/uncle/aunt of the subject has done something notable they are mentioned in the article. This includes articles such as Elmer Gedeon, Bob Chappuis, Barry Bonds. This is true even for infamous things such as Elmer Gedeon and his infamous uncle. Being part of a family of athletes is a significnat thing for an athlete bio. At the current Keith Bostic (American football) there is discussion on the relevance of a nephew who is most notable for his infamy. It does not makes sense to me that an article would be considered more complete without such facts. Although you can not choose your family it is not relevant. Regardless of whether he raised his nephew the guy is his nephew and shares his last name. If people want to know if they are related, we should WP:PRESERVE that info if we have it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how not saying it in the article violates WP:PRESERVE if we have that info in another article.じんない 01:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The info is not in another article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Then if there isn't another article, is he really notable or is it just too recent?じんない 03:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the info is a bit overly long – can't you condense it to "was a promising college football player who won a scholarship to Oklahoma State but was later arrested for gun trafficking"? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a reasonable summary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Stable criteria

Can the previous discussion at Archive 9 be added to the GA criteria page under ...Is article stable edit wars etc? The fact that an article is about a proposed road, route, building is subject to fail should be added to the criteria from the get go, as it has been decided upon previously as a course of action. SriMesh | talk 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a really long archive. Can you please give a link to the exact section? Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2009

(UTC)

Sorry, that would help ... it is the section about Future events Kind Regards me againSriMesh | talk 05:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Undoing a fail

Hi, I recently failed a GAN for Avery-MacLeod-McCarty experiment. However, the editor fixed things up so fast that I'm regretting my premature fail, and would like to now pass the article without having to make him go through the GAN process again. Is this ok? Sasata (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's OK. I haven't heard of a rule for or against it, though. I would just be BOLD and do it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Have passed the article. Sasata (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Nancy Blackett (character)/GA1

I'm not desperately familiar with the GA process but I would really like a second opinion on this failure which was handed down in the space of about 5 minutes without a proper review and without giving any opportunity to address the apparent problems. Miss Blackett's not perfect but the girl ain't that bad surely. Thanks in advance, Nancy ^talk 14:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify. I'm asking if the review could be reopened and perhaps assigned to a reviewer who has more willingness to collaborate and work with us to get this thing through GA. Nancy ^talk 14:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The criteria that one GAR holds you to vs. another GAR holds you to can be quite different. If you get a very thorough GAR that fails your article, you should fix all the issues, and renominate it. You'll probably pass with flying colors the second time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Although the GAC review was brief, I can't say I disagree with the outcome. The article contains very little (if any) out-of-universe information; see WP:INUNIVERSE. Nothing is stated about her origins -- her creation and development, what Ransome thought of her place in the books (perhaps consult his biographies?), would all be helpful here. The "Legacy" section is a nice start as far as non-universe information, but at only two sentences long, it leaves much to be desired. Lastly, a majority of the references are primary, and not secondary, so perhaps more research is needed. Lastly, I'm not sure if you should assume that every editor will want to "collaborate" with you; this is not always the case. If you're looking for hands-on help, have you tried the appropriate WikiProjects? Hope this helps. María (habla conmigo) 14:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I understand absolutely that the article needs work, just had rather hoped to be given some opportunity to do it once it had been pointed out. I have all the reference books at home (including Ransome's bio and autobio incidentally) and could have addressed the concerns within 24 hours. By collaborate I was thinking of more of a two way dialogue kind of thing like I have seen in other people's more collegiate GARs. I have almost no experience of GAN and I have to say I was quite astonished by the brusquesness of the review and the fact that there was absolutely no opportunity given for any kind of discussion and improvement. Do reviews really need to be so negative and demotivating? - is that just how it is? Not at all what I was expecting and not at all conducive to making me want to return. Once bitten twice shy as they say. Nancy ^talk 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, GAC is kind of a crap shoot in a way. I've had one-sentence reviews, and then I've had long, wonderfully detailed and helpful reviews. You just never know. :) I'm glad you have more sources available to you, and I do hope that you (like Peregrine suggested above) aim to improve the article and bring it by here again. She sounds like an interesting character! María (habla conmigo) 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Is not the pot-luck nature of this process something to be concerned about and indeed addressed? Nancy ^talk 05:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The article was failed because it didn't meet the criteria. "Crap shoot" refers to whether you get a "not good enough, fail" or a much more detailed review. We can't really go making it an obligation for reviewers to go into detailed feedback if they don't want to; it can take long enough to get a review done as it is. Ultimately the onus is on you to make sure its good enough in the first place. bridies (talk) 05:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that. My point is rather more about the general approach to reviewing. The pot luck I was referring to was about whether one gets a drive-by wholly negative review with an instafail which could be paraphrased as "don't bother love, GA for this one is a futile ambition" and not a single minute given to address the identified weaknesses. On the majority of other reviews I have looked at the points of issue were laid out objectively and the article editors given a chance to respond and address. I guess it's all moot now for me as wild horses wouldn't drag me back here but perhaps there is an opportunity to look to the future and try not to alienate any more editors in this way? Nancy ^talk 10:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm, that's pretty much exactly what I just covered. Reviewers aren't obligated to do anything more than a "drive-by" review if they don't want to; many go into more detail but it's a mistake to make that a requirement. bridies (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Bridies, you and I will have to agree differ on that one. I would argue that if reviewers aren't willing to do it properly then they shouldn't do it at all. I cannot respect a review procedure where it is OK for the reviewer to admit that they didn't examine the sources but you do and that's your prerogative and I do respect that. Nancy ^talk 11:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, from your talk page you are an admin; and you became an admin over a year ago. However, you claim to be unfamiliar with the WP:GAN process, which may will be true, but you are perfectly capable of looking at the acceptance criteria and of looking at existing GA-class articles in the category that this former GAN falls. It was suggested that the article be brought up to B-class before it is resubmitted for GAN; and you yourself claim to be able to bring it up to GA-class within 24 hours, but are refusing to do so. The reviewer can put the article On Hold if it is thought that it can be brought up to GA standard within one week. You are not prepared to do so, so the reviewer with hindsight made the right decision. You are hardly a "newbee", so all this negative talk is "sour grapes". Try the old shock therapy. Get it up to GA-standard within 24 hours, resubmit it to WP:GAN and I will review it, or stop winging.Pyrotec (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What an astonishing assumption. Where have I said I am refusing to do the work? How do you know that I didn't spend last night with my head in AR's biography making notes? Which actually I did. Thanks though for the offer of a review, but as I have said I'm not inclined to return to GAN - which perhaps is what you misinterpreted as "I'm not prepared to improve the article", if so, apologies for my lack of clarity. Nancy ^talk 12:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if I got your statement wrong. WP:FAC in 24-hours I presume? I will put the article on my watch list.Pyrotec (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No hard feelings. As you note I've been an admin for over a year so have the hide of a rhino now. Don't hold your breath about the article though - the sun's finally come out so we're going to spend the rest of the day on the boat (the one that the fictional Nancy would be scornful of). Cheers, Nancy ^talk 12:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Trial reactivation of Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive

Hi all, given discussion on esoteric nature of some FAs and GAs, I thought reactivating this might be worthwhile. My take would be the best candidates are large, general articles which are reasonably comprehensive, non-controversial and might not be too far off GA or FA. I thought barley but feel free to discuss or think of others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I haven't checked recently, but I'd guess that there are only a few thousand really active contributors to wikipedia—to content I mean, not wikiwonkery; from memory something like 3,500. Like most, I imagine. I prefer to work on those topics that interest me, whether others consider them to be important or not. So for me at least barley is way off left field. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we tried this with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good Article Collaboration Center. It was resounding failure. Tons of people signed up, then nothing. I'd work on Barley or whatever if it really meant a meaningful collaboration, but they don't seem to work. I hope I'm wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, our 1.0 Core Topics Collaboration recently died, having limped along for the last couple of years. However, there are some enthusiastic folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vital_Articles who want to work on things like that - maybe barley isn't quite in the top 1000, but you might want to help them. Also, I think there may be another Core Contest run at the end of the year, be sure to sign up for that! Speaking on behalf of the 1.0 team, we definitely want more articles like Barley improved and promoted. Walkerma (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New user GA pass

Just more of a heads up rather than a red alert: User:Vantine84 has just passed WarioWare: Smooth Moves with a barebones review. While this may be completely justified, I'd appreciate it if someone could give the review/article another look over. Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

In general, doing a GA review is too subjective for a new user to do, and I would advise the user not to do that. On the other hand, based on a quick glance, the article has nothing that sticks out as blatantly wrong, so no harm done, so far. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 14:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty solid, although I haven't checked refs or image copyrights. IMO the most serious gap is that there's no explanation of the kind of task set in individual microgames - I have difficulty getting my head round this, as I prefer strategy games to shooters, flight sims and other sub-genres that emphasise reflexes and dexterity. --Philcha (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes its better to undo a GA pass by a new user. Ex : Talk:Touch_the_Clouds#GA_review, where a new user passed the article as GA but when experienced editors reviewed it, the GA failed. But in this case, there seems to be no such problems... but always better to keep an eye on the GA reviews by new users. Bluptr (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to a new working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial coordinators together so that projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. We are also planning a better coordinatopn among all projects and centralizing.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hep^Talk on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A discussion on the assesment scale is currently taking place at.[13]. It would be nice to have a few eyes and ears from this place to give feedback and coordinate things.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Asking advice for GA category

I nominated Ethanol fuel in Brazil and History of ethanol fuel in Brazil a week ago in the Miscellaneous section because I was unsure where to put it (the articles are related to sustainable energy or sustainable transport). I would like to hear from regulars to this page if would help to place it in a more specific category such as Engineering or Transportation. Suggestions are welcome and if possible, how do I move the nominations without losing the original nomination date. Thanks.--Mariordo (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see a few categories it might fall under, but whether that would help depends on potential reviewers who might be keeping an eye on a particular section. As for your last question, you can just cut and paste and the date will stay the same. PSWG1920 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

They are on my list of articles that I "might" review; but I have some other reviews to finish first. The category in which they are placed is not too important at this stage.Pyrotec (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say that the sheer length of Ethanol fuel in Brazil is likely a huge turnoff. Perhaps you should consider going straight for WP:FA with that one. That way reviewers could at least share the load. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you alll of you guy for your prompt feedback. Actually when I began revamping this article I worked on it having in mind the FA criteria, but I decided to go to GA first just to have feedback, improve it further and have it ready for FAC. I would like to hear other opinions before jumping directtly to FAC.--Mariordo (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

At WP:GA, it would probably be "General and human geography", which is a subsection of "Geography". Geometry guy 19:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What should I do if an article I'm reviewing doesn't satisfy notability?

I am reviewing an article that I feel doesn't meet the notability criteria. It might pass the good but not the article part of 'good article'. Now, I've tagged the article with notability and merge tags, but should I quick fail it? Or recuse myself? Or put the article on hold? (I could be wrong, but I don't feel it has a chance of being notable) Diderot's dreams (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I see two reasonable options here: if you want to nominate the article at AfD, recuse on the GAN and close your review, while leaving the article nominated at GAN - I can help with the templates in this case; if you don't, then fail the article without a hold, giving your reasons (2a, 2c and 3b would be the most obvious aspects to focus on). There is no point in putting such an article on hold. Geometry guy 23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Any restriction on Size to be a GA?

Dear Editors, I wanted to know if there is a restriction on the size for an article to pass a GA. For Ex: Mellitus has been added for GA Review, but I feel that the article is small. Can others pls share their views? Thanks. --Bluptr (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you feel that this article is actually lacking something? It is about the life of a 7th century archbishop, which I would think wouldn't have very much information, but still manages to use a dozen book and journal references to provide a fairly complete record of his life. There isn't a restriction on the size of GA articles, just a criteria of broadness, which means that it "it addresses the main aspects of the topic", and is much weaker than FAC's need for comprehensiveness. GA was designed to be able to recognize the shorter, less comprehensive articles that didn't have a chance at FAC. It has grown beyond that original purpose, but that is still a key point of its nature, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That article is quite lengthy compared to some of mine. Juliancolton (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I also had a much shorter one, The Daily Mash, passed a few days ago. I agree there is no minimum length required (leave that for FAC) as long as it "covers the main points". bridies (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed, and passed, pretty short articles before. By the time I'd finished reviewing, it had over twice the readable prose size as at the beginning; but then, I'm incorrigible. I don't think the size of the archbishop article is a barrier to it passing as a GA. –Whitehorse1 14:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs, very helpful. Bluptr (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I nominated Strensham services for GA, and it was failed seemingly on length issues. My response to the review hopefully cleared up a few points (and its now renominated). May be worth a read of the review and response in relation to this. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not the way I read the GA/1. I think there is a degree of mis-representation here. There was lack of full references (no publisher provided, newspapers not italicised, etc) and what the reviewer regarded as lack of broadness. You have addressed the lack of notable events, so it is probably a marginal pass; but it could not be regarded as an outstanding GA (when/if GA is granted). You've possibly done the minimum needed for it to scrape through. There are no geo co-ordinates; no discussion of numbers of "vistors"/customers; these would only add marginally to the length; and you appear to quote Pevsner's guide to Worcestershire, but you have not looked at Pevsner (or given a page number), you've probably spent 30 seconds on google and come up with a electronic page from the Worcester News.Pyrotec (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct, I spent (probably less than 30 seconds) on google to get that source. As it stands I was looking for something else and that was in the search results and I felt it deserved a mention. Its not a guide I have looked in, and will probably never look in it. There are co-ordinates, but even if there wasn't that is not a requirement of the GA criteria. I think you may wish to read what you type before you post things, as what you have written above came across very badly and not in the spirit of WP. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you don't like the words that I have used. In summary you basically disagree with the last GAreview, I will do you a GA this afternoon (if you want), but do not expect words of praise on how "good" the article is.Pyrotec (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be best to wait for someone to review it with fresh eyes, rather than someone who has pre formulated opinions on the article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If an article is 1kb or something like that, I'm pretty sure it can be expanded "somehow", so that wouldn't be a GA. An article like the example above is perfectly fine as a GA. Wizardman 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ýdalir is the shortest GA I have seen so far. Punkmorten (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that pure size isn't a measure of anything—only the breadth of the content should be measured. The above example is a good one. This is an important part of the GA process. Sometimes a topic is so limited that the majority of the study can be summed up in a few paragraphs. We shouldn't be scared of small articles or consider them unfinished; they are a crucial part of a comprehensive encyclopaedia. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Check please

Fountain of Time

Talk:Fountain of Time/GA1

My first GA review, currently on hold,

I'm almost at the stage of passing it, after checking it over once more.

I'd appreciate if someone could look it over with a regard to;

a) Have I performed the review properly,

b) Do you agree the article meets GA requirements?

MAny thanks, --  Chzz  ►  05:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

First, good review! GA needs reviews like that.

My thoughts on the article, GA criteria or not (skim reading):

It's right next to a pass; the WP:IG problem below has to be fixed

The infoxbox is very, very wide and rather distracting.

The Galleries in the article violate WP:IG, and therefore the article fails 6B at the moment (IMHO). I'm not saying that all of the images have to go, but I think that 19 in those two galleries are way too many.

Are six citations really necessary for the last paragraph? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. It means a lot, after I've spent about 20 hours solid on this! I can't believe GA's take so long; how do they ever get finished?!

I'm tweaking the prose a little, and the excess refs there are my own fault; I'll sort that.

I'll consider the infobox issue.

Regards the gallery, yes, I'm going to make some suggestions. I think about 3 of the images could usefully be in-line with the article (worn statues re restoration, and the one of the artist); some others are almost duplicates, so I'll try to reach an agreement there.

I've been amending the prose considerably; I'm not sure how Good is Good. Initially, it had serious grammatical errors, and I hope I've fixed those. It's still not great...I've put my notes in the article talk page about suggested improvements for the future, but I think it's probably up to the Good standard now - do you agree? (Regarding prose, I mean)

Thanks again,

--  Chzz  ►  07:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice you've already passed the article, but just so you know I think the prose is fine for GA. Thank you for an excellent first review - nice job ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would not have passed this in its present state. The main content seems to jump around between planning, installation and description. It also refers to Taft several times, but the only w-link re him is in the lead. Some of the writing is poor, e.g. the sentence "Designed without expansion joints, few outdoor sculptures have been made of similar materials since the 1930s" has a bad case of dangling participle. --04:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Curious

Pardon my ignorance, and I'll admit to having barely skimmed the information; but, am I to understand that GA is decided by one editor who reviews a request for GA? First come first serve basis? If that is the case, it seems to be one of the very few areas of Wikipedia that consensus, collaboration, and discussion have no play. That hardly seems to be an effective method of review. Not that it's important, just curious. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 15:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines and process underpinning GA are developed through consensus, collaboration, and discussion. Regarding "hardly seems to be an effective method of review" – what makes you say that? –Whitehorse1 15:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is usually a backlog, it's not a case of first serve its usually a case of waiting for someone to review it.Pyrotec (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK ... again, this isn't what I've been doing, so I surely meant no disrespect. An editor I've sort of taken under my wing asked me if he could appeal a "fail" when he put an article up for GA. Most of the areas I've been to so far in my short time here, seem to revolve around discussion and consensus (and I'm not commenting on exactly what "consensus" is). I thought surely anything that would involve changing the rating of an article would involve more than one person who takes the case (if that's a proper term), simply saying "Pass" or "Fail". I had assumed that when articles reached a stage of GA or FA possibility - that there would be a group discussion on the matter. If that's not the case, I'm curious as to what would stop an editor from simply re-nominating until he received the results he or she was looking for. Note: I've seen GAR, perhaps that is the answer forthcoming? — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 15:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, anyone can change the status of articles below GA without even a review! There's nothing to stop someone simply renominating an article again and again, but because there is a specific criteria (WP:GACR), it's unlikely to pass if it isn't up to scratch. bridies (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) Well for a start every GAN goes on the article's talk page history. The first GAN review is GA/1, the second GA/2, etc. If I see an GA/3 or 4 appearing shortly after that last "failure" and all the previous comments from the GA reviewer(s) have been ignored, because the nominator did not like the answer(s), then I'm hardly like to review it; although I could give it an instant fail. (2) Have a look at Talk:Manchester Mark 1/GA1, discussion 95 at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 11 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Manchester Mark 1/1. The nominator disagreed with the GAreviewer; and won (quite rightly, in my opinion).Pyrotec (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FAC is different to WP:GAN, that is a group consensus (or majority view).Pyrotec (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This is great - good feedback, and quickly too! I could get to like working with you folks! I've primarily only been adding content and references, copyediting and such. The one time I asked about an article I'd done a lot of work to, someone simply bumped it from stub to start - and said good job. I've reviewed the criteria for various "classes", and it seems some of the items could be considered subjective. Heck, even the WP:V talk page has tons of "what exactly is truth" debate on it. Other than criteria, how exactly does one bump an article from start to C, or from C to B? ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 16:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC) @Pyrotec, I'll go look over that stuff now - thanks

There's often heaps of confusion over this! :) Quality scale ratings are entirely separate from GA/FA/FL. Individual WikiProjects assess articles under their remit & flag them as Stub=>Start=>C=>B=>A. Not all projects use all of those ratings; 'C-class' was introduced later, for example. Most WikiProjects form an assessment team and assessment criteria—tailored to their topic but broadly based on the main Wikipedia:Version 1.0 quality scale. –Whitehorse1 16:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN assessment is not a matter of "simply saying 'Pass' or 'Fail'"; rather, it's an evaluating process against established criteria, leading ultimately to one of those outcomes—perhaps after a hold period to allow contributors to fix issues brought up by the reviewer.

Sometimes, an article is 'quick-failed' without a full review, though this is for solid reasons: ongoing edit-warring or merging (which could substantially change the article in-review, making assessment impractical), or larger issues which the reviewer reasonably believes are unlikely to be resolved during any short-term (say 7 days) hold period.

A GAR community reassessment may be opened when involved editors cannot reach agreement over the assessment result. It's not intended for situations where the nominator/contributors just don't "like" the GAN result though. This is why reviewers are strongly encouraged to make suggestions for improvement, particularly when failing an article. The suggestions are made to allow contributors to work on those, and re-nominate after improvements—hopefully to pass.

If, for example, an editor repeatedly nominated an article where it was clear it didn't meet the criteria, and made no effort to address issues raised by the previous reviewers, generally an experienced reviewer would discuss that with the user on their talk page. –Whitehorse1 16:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Boy, open one door to learn something here, and ya find 100 more doors to open and read ;).. I appreciate you finding a article on a similar topic too. It was the Talk:Norton Internet Security/GA2 article that brought me here. (while I wasn't the primary contributor, I did make comments at the bottom of the GA review). The fact that an editor who appeared to have only been here a day or so could fail a review really got me to wondering - and that's what brought me here. I can see I have another stack of homework to do here, and I thank you all for your input. I'm sure you'll see me around in the future. I have a new friend that's going to be nominating an article shortly who has a long list of GA's under his belt - so I'll be following that one as well. Again, thanks, and I look forward to working with you folks in the future ;) — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 16:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to return briefly to the original question. The reason GA is an efficient and effective review process is that it is inspired by the wiki principle that anyone can edit: essentially any registered user can change the GA status of an article by leaving a review. It is worth reading WP:CONSENSUS from time to time to appreciate how this principle is compatible with consensus building. If anyone believes a review was unfair or inadequate, it can be challenged. There is no point in having a long drawn out discussion unless there is disagreement of substance. The infrastructure that has developed around GA is primarily there to make it easier to track article reviews, spot inadequate ones, and resolve disagreements when they arise. In most cases, it isn't needed; hence effort is concentrated on those cases where it is.

The efficency of this approach can be seen in the number of GAs: the growth rate is not static, but increasing; processes which require discussion of every article typically have static growth rates. Geometry guy 20:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to see how relatively flat the FA line is. It's my distinct impression that the quality of GA reviews has been increasing significantly as well, but a bit more difficult to get a handle on that. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re new user reviewing

Rough sequence: The first GAN review was made by User:Gary King, an experienced reviewer. Nominator‑User:TechOutsider placed a GAR template on it and within the same 24hr period placed a "page is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping." template on the article itself. It doesn't appear the GAR was properly set up. The 2nd reviewer—the new account User:Ched refers to—it seems overwrote the {{FailedGA}} template with the 2nd {{GA nominee}} template, and never closed the 2nd GA—though stated it had failed, due to their belief merging was required. The reviewer (#2) User:Yellowweasel is also taking part in the backlog drive, reviewing highly-complex (well, to me) articles.

• It might be a good idea for an experienced somebody to look over the assessments of the new user, Yellowweasel.
• It also looks like the rapid succession of transclusions and overwrites on the article Talk page left something of a mess. If anybody is experienced in using the {{articlehistory}} template there's probably a fair amount of cleanup work needed, from their able hands.

 –Whitehorse1 18:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the rest, but I don't think the user is really new. Their account is two weeks old, but their edit summaries start out full of wiki acronyms. Also, someone on their talk page said "welcome back". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

...Interesting. It looks like you're right; I glanced over their contributions. Probably in any event still worth someone casting an eye over their GA-oriented activity, if only to share a few tips. –Whitehorse1 19:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The user since posted on their talk/user pages they had retired from Wikipedia. I handled the Norton review. –Whitehorse1 15:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Are cite tags necessary for GA?

I can't find any specific information to say if use oc cite tags are essential for GA, or merely recommended; does anyone have a view on this?

If an article has appropriate and consistent refs without cite tags, is that acceptable?

Thanks, --  Chzz  ►  15:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a requirement that references need to be properly formatted. This doesn't mean the templates are required necessarily, but you can't have bare links without publisher or title information. If the citation info is good without the tags being used, that's fine, just as long as it's proper. Wizardman 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ty --  Chzz  ►  18:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's easier to get consistent formatting by using the cite tags. There are tools to make it really easy - for example reftools, an option in the "Gadgets" section of your Preferences, adds to the Edit box a button that displays a form, so you past in the values and it handles the mark-up parameters - I have no idea why it is not enabled by default. User:Smith609/Cite is another, runs in a separate page / tab. In addition if it's an academic papaer that has a DOI (digital object identifier), you can just enter the DOI and a bot will do the rest. --Philcha (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Long Delays

I just put an article up for candidacy four days ago in Sports and Recreation and I noticed that some articles stay in that section's queue for up to a month. That seems like a terribly long time -- is there a way we can improve this delay? --Sportskido8 (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You can help review some articles. Gary King (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the delay a problem? Are you in a hurry? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No hurry here, but a month seems like a really long time. I don't mind reviewing a few articles, I'll probably do that. --Sportskido8 (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The backlog was hitting 2 months and 60 articles at one point, so at least it has improved. Wizardman 16:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Nominations" vs. "Candidates"

There are featured article and list candidate. Yet good articles are only nominations. Anyone think it would be a good idea to change the page name to "Good Article Candidates" for consistency? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 10:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time this was called Good Article Candidates - the proposal to move it to 'nominations' is here. I have no preference either way ;) EyeSerene^talk 10:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it was strange to make it GAN when it went against all the other content processes, but we'd be going from nominations to candidates to nominations to candidates again. Don't really care. As the linked discussion notes, "by any other name..." --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best if we could focus more on the task at hand -- reviewing articles -- rather than worrying about minor and petty little procedural and naming things. Wikipedia's primary mission is to improve articles. We do that by writing, and reviewing them. The more we worry about procedures and style, the more we get away from the primary mission. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. It seems this page name has been changed about 3 or 4 times. I guess I'll leave it alone then. Just an idle question. My apologies for wasting time from the main purpose. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You've nothing to apologise for. Sometimes procedural and style issues need to be examined; you had a question, and asked it. That's what this page is for ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors

I have opted to review this article upon seeing it on the backlog banner on top of GAN. However, it seems to have quite serious issues, so I'd like someone's opinion on whether to should put it on hold or fail it. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you expand a little bit regarding your concerns? From a quick look through the article (really, just skimming), I don't see anything that meets the quick fail criteria. There are a few places that need references, at least one dead link, and way too much bold text in the article, but even seeing those in a quick skim wouldn't be enough for me to fail without hold. Maybe I'm completely missing something though :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

There's some organizational/MoS issues as well (like one-sentence subsections), but it's not a quick-fail either. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have some OR concerns about Norway, since it makes a lot of comments about the law that are not evident in the law text itself, without quoting anything but the actual law text. I am also concerned that it simply lists up a biased list of nine countries, without even making a general discussion of the law. These countries are all either English speaking or in Northern Europe, plus South Africa. What about Latin America, Asia, the Middle East etc? It also does not have a general discussion of the issue, independent of the countries (save the lead). I would have failed the article, since it has clear and obvious faults, and would need a serious expansion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the thing I'm most worried about. In its current state, the article is mostly a list of laws without any mention of history, major stances on the issue, etc. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be failed unless much expansion is forthcoming. Not a bad article by any means but it is still quite far from being a good one. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I know the article is not a quick fail per QF criteria, but this is IMO way above prose issues, so I've failed it. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Using inappropriate criteria for quick fail reviews

I'm very concerned about the apparent tendency of some Good article reviewers to, in effect, perform reviews using criteria more appropriate for Featured article reviews, and then quick-failing an article without providing the nominator any opportunity to revise the article or respond to criticisms.

For example, applying every last detail of form in the Manual of Style during a Good article review, when the instructions for Good article reviews specifically limit its application, and applying the policy guidance suggestions for length of lead sections as if they were mandatory in every instance.

There also appears to be a tendency among some reviewers, but not all, to identify every last little detail in an article that might be changed to improve it, without saying what the minimum amount of change is that is necessary for it to pass a good article review.

It appears the guidance provided about how to apply a limited review for a decent article is too subtle for some reviewers to understand--even some experienced reviewers--resulting in some injustice to the nominator.

The result is that some reviews appear to be arbitrary, capricious, arrogant, and unreasonable. I don't think this helps build an encyclopedia.

Personally, I am now deterred from ever again nominating an article for Good article review, despite the fact I have created many new articles and have brought several of them successfully through Good article review.

The guidance needs to be improved so there is more consistency in its application from one reviewer to the next, and there should be some explicit discouragement of reviewers overdoing it. Otherwise, it merely drives good editors away, and discourages them from bringing their efforts to Good article review. The result of this is fewer Good articles than might otherwise be written if reviews were done better. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you discussing a quick fail (ie. an article failed without a review because of obvious problems such as cleanup banner), or is it a fail without a hold (ie. an article that was reviewed but found to have so many concerns needing to be addressed that the reviewer determined that they could not be completed within a reasonable timespan? I have used both in the past, but I decided a while back that neither are particularly helpful. For the former, I would encourage reviewers to state what needs to be completed (the obvious problems) before a detailed review will take place. If that is not completed within a week, a fail is appropriate. For the latter, I would encourage reviewers to give the benefit of the doubt to the nominator. Waiting a week won't hurt anything. There is nothing in the guidelines that make either of these suggestions mandatory, though. As for detailed reviews, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree for the most part. I always welcome an in-depth review because I would like the articles I work on to be as good as possible. That, for me, is the point behind this process, and I'm not sure why people would want to aim lower. Perhaps if you can give an example of a review that you have found problematic, it would help get to the root of your concern. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess you would call it a "fail without a hold" rather than a "quick fail." There were no banners or tags of any sort on the article before it was reviewed. The article is Norman I. Wengert. The reviewer compiled a long list of defects, most of which are not supposed to be part of a good article review according to the criteria for good article review. and he did not distinguish between which ones were required for a good article and which ones were suggestions for further improvement beyond that. Then he failed it without any hold or notice to the nominator. The defects appropriate for a good article review were readily fixable, the others more time consuming. Wikipedia prescribes a two-step process, one for good article review and a more thorough Featured article review. Seems to me inappropriate to apply Featured article criteria during a good article review. If we want a one-stage review process, that's what we should have. And in this case, the editor was not helpful in the least. Brusque, sarcastic, and condescending. Take a look and see what you think. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I was recently involved in a similar situation where I failed an article because I thought the improvements required (several of which were beyond the GA-level criteria) would be too much work to complete in the 7-day period. The nominator proved me wrong by addressing all my suggestions within the next day, and then left a polite message on my talk page requesting I have another look. I did, the article was fine and I reversed my judgement error and passed it. Perhaps a similar strategy could be applied here? Sasata (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the concerns brought up by the reviewer. Many of them seem to fall under the "well-written" criterion, which applies to flow of prose and to grammar (and I would argue punctuation as well). It's nice when the reviewer fixes minor problems, but the reviewing instructions state that there is no obligation to do so. Overall, I don't think that the review went into too much detail. I don't want to sound offensive or accusatory, but I was left wondering with a couple of the responses why a nominator would not want to follow through with suggestions for improvements. Is the goal not to make the article as good as possible? With that said, a one-week hold would have been nice. Perhaps the nominator would be willing to take another look if all of the concerns are addressed within the next week. As the reviewer has been criticized as a bad reviewer and someone who should be prevented from performing future reviews, however, he or she may just want to be out of the situation altogether. With all due respect, I believe that some of your responses have been out of line. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess the good article criteria just don't mean a thing then, if its everybody do whatever they please. If that's the way it is, it will be a long, long time before I submit another article for good article review. It amazes me how little regard some editors have for Wikipedia policies. If that's the way it goes, why bother having guidelines or policies at all? Why not just drop the pretense and admit anarchy reigns here?

My responses were just that: responses stimulated by inappropriate behavior. Oh yes, and always blame the victim, right? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with GaryColemanFan: the concerns stated by the reviewer appear to be valid based on the GA criteria, and there's no reason for anyone to be combative. Personally, I probably would not have failed (btw, it's not a quickfail if the article was reviewed in full) the article without a hold period, but just because every reviewer is different -- which means of course that every review is different -- does not mean that the system is broken. Mervyn Emrys, perhaps the energy being spent here would better be spent on fixing the article? María (habla conmigo) 01:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(out) - "MOS isn't required in a GA review". Then why does 1b on WP:GA? say this? "It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation." —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read the whole thing, Ed 17. THOSE parts of MOS certainly DO apply, but the rest of MOS including parts concerning punctuation and reference style are excluded from that sentence and therefor do NOT apply. Don't take my word for it, read the actual WP:Good article criteria if you don't believe it! See especially footnote [1] there. There, I've even given you a link. Have a swell day. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

But why would you even want an inconsistent reference style? That just looks odd to readers, and can hamper efforts to find the sources. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Good article criteria is the link; it's in the project namespace, not the mainspace. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of want. It's a question of a fair and meaningful interpretation of requirements. The difference is significant, or else there is no difference, in which case a good article review is the SAME as a Featured article review. One might even say it is uncivil to fail an article for failing to do what is not required for WP:Good article review. It appears to me that the only way to resolve this confusion is to move the footnote [1] into the main text of the criteria, and state specifically and separately what the reviewer needs to see for a good article pass, as distinct from any additional changes that might be desirable beyond that threshold. It IS an issue of fundamental fairness. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a quick-fail (fast fail, whatever) was not appropriate, but I'd like to point out that the reviewer specifically stated that the "decisive factor" was the spotty coverage of his academic career, not the MOS issues. It would have been bad to fail the article on the basis of the MOS issues, but that isn't what the reviewer claimed to have done. Certainly there is nothing wrong with a reviewer mentioning MOS issues at the GA level. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me to point out that using the phrase "decisive factor" does not imply it was the only factor that needed to be cured to earn a "pass," and the reviewer allowed NO opportunity whatsoever to address that factor or any other factor. It was NOT clear that that was the only thing needed. It is still not clear that might have been what the reviewer meant. A little more clarity was needed. It was not provided. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the reviewer, who has consider experience in reviewing WP:GANs (and also in submitting articles to WP:GAN), made a decision which the nominator is unable to accept. The nominator then attempts to carry out an analysis of the reviewers comments (see Talk:Norman I. Wengert/GA1), rejecting them as not, in the nominator's opinion, being required under WP:MOS. The nominator then goes on to enter a long tirade which is little more than a character assassination on the reviewer. The nominator asks for "fairness", but appears unable to extend it to fellow authors. Having looked at the article, it has been considerably improved since it failed GA on 11 March 2009. I, personally, would not passed it on the 11 March 2009; I probably would have put it On Hold. The WP:lead was clearly inadequate, despite what the nominator claims. However, if I had suffered the character assassination that the this nominator dishes out, I would have a very strong inclination to never ever "pass" any WP:GANs arising from that source. Having said that, I would probably pass the article as it stands now if I came across it at WP:GAN. It seem to me that the solution to the problem is for the nominator to treat any potential and actual reviewers with the same fairness that the nominator expects to receive.Pyrotec (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If it had been put on hold, the situation would be different, but it was NOT put on hold. It was immediately failed without any hold. And now you appear to be saying that enough changes have been made in three days to make it GA, while the reviewer concluded those changes could not be made in a brief hold period. Thank you for recognizing at least that much of the problem. All I ask for is fundamental fairness and a little common courtesy. And YES, I routinely provide the same to others who treat me the same way. Actually, I go further, and provide edits to articles I review right alongside the nominator. This reviewer did not do either. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It might also be worth pointing out that wikilinking common terms like "good article" and "MOS" fifteen or so times in responses to the review could be considered uncivil and verging on violating WP:POINT. As a reviewer, I have made requests that the nominator has seen as unnecessary. Each is treated on a case-by-case basis. I've been angrily told that I should just pass the article as it is, which tends to get a less than favorable response from me. In other cases, such as inconsistent reference formatting, the nominator explained that with 100+ references and a busy work schedule, formatting them all within a week would be difficult at best. In that case, because the point was explained politely, I was willing to bend a little and I formatted them all myself. I think Pyrotec is really on to something. WP:AGF needs to go both ways. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh come now, let's not get silly about the number of responses to a list of criticisms. Those reponses were on a checklist of individual comments, each requiring a comment. That reviewer did not even change a period to a comma to deal with one of his criticisms (there is a specific example of that in the list). He would rather criticize than help out. He did not provide any assistance whatsoever, and did not allow a HOLD period for ANY changes to be made.

But that is not the point of this discussion. The point is: can the guidance be improved to avoid this kind of situation in future? I think it can, rather simply, if anyone cares to do so. Just move footnote [1] into the body of the criteria; add a statement saying reviewers should be specific and divide their comments between those required for GA status and those desirable to improve the article but not required for GA status; and allow a reasonable hold period for changes to be made if they can be. Is that so much to ask? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

GA is primarily summative not formative assessment. There is no requirement on the reviewer to place a GA on hold, only a requirement to leave a review which allows editors to improve the article and try again. Reviewers can place articles on hold or not purely according to what they believe is the best use of resources to improve the encyclopedia. I am against quick-fails in the sense that I believe a review should always be left; however the review does not need to be comprehensive: if there are manifest failings with respect to the GA criteria, it suffices to highlight a few of them.

I see no misstep in this case and no cause for change based on one nominators misunderstanding of the process. GAN fails of articles which meet the criteria should be brought to GAR. If the article does not meet the criteria, improve and renominate. Bickering about it on this page wastes mutliple editors valuable wikitime. Geometry guy 23:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason we reassessments. I think that this problem could be easily solved by taking it there, instead of creating a long discussion saying GAC is failing.

Would I have simply failed the article without waiting a few days? No, I usually like to put it on hold, and see what nominators can do. However, whether or not you do that is a judgment call. Again, this should be taken to GAR. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears I have bothered you all with what you see as a mere triffle, despite the fact it seems important to me. It is most regretful that I have taken up so much of your valuable time. I shall not do so again. I will not bother you in future by nominating articles for this flawed process. And I will not offer my paltry services to review articles. I can find other better things to do. Farewell. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that you're wasting time. What I said was, take it to GAR, where you can deal with it "officially", instead of just talking. That's what it's there for. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 03:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Juris doctor GA Nomination question

I note that the Juris doctor article has sat for over five weeks and counting awaiting review. I went in to investigate possibly reviewing this article myself and noted a "recent" (within the last two weeks) edit dispute and that the article was put up for mediation on a contentious issue (the cause of the edit war). Would this be grounds for a quick-fail due to article instability? What about the fact that it is in mediation? Do we let the mediation play out first? I personally would hate to see an article wait that long and then quick-fail, especially if it is in mediation, but I would like to continue to clear out old articles. Any thoughts on this? I've raised the issue on the article's talk page as well for comment and to put the editors on notice that a quick-fail is a possibility. H1nkles (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary that "GA nomination should be discussed"?

Recently, I had nominated Real-time Transport Protocol for GAN, but an editor removed it ( [14] [15] ) saying "not reviewed by experienced editors". Is this justified? and who are these "experienced editors"? ( I can consider myself an "expert" like that ) Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, no. Considering that you are the primary author/sourcer of the article (see this diff and WikiChecker; you've got 51 edits to his 11), and the fact that technically anyone can nom anything they want at GAN, I really don't think that reverting it or discussing it on the talk page was/is necessary. Also, I have no idea what he means by "experienced editors". —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that person doesn't have the right to just up and remove it. Wizardman 06:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominees not on the nominations page

I checked User:VeblenBot/C/Good article nominees awaiting review and the bot has some good article nominees that are not on the nominations page, one left over from December 2008. How do I best deal with this? Notifying the people or simply putting the articles on the nominations page? Looks like the nominators forgot to put the articles on the nominations page. The list:

• American crocodile - nominated by Steveprutz on 10 December 2008
• Chemetco - nominated by Astral highway on 8 January 2009
• Medical director - nominated by Emrgmgmtca on 2 February 2009
• ABC (medicine) - nominated by Emrgmgmtca on 2 February 2009
• Triage - nominated by Emrgmgmtca on 2 February 2009
• The Nightingale - nominated by ItsLassieTime on 6 February 2009

Advice? Thanks. Hekerui (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

American Crocodile was failed by the reviewer at the time but the tags were not taken down. Also with the rest of GANs i suggest someone puts them on the review page and or reviews them. Jason Rees (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll

The above link leads to a community poll regarding date linking on Wikipedia. The poll has not yet opened, but the community is invited to review the format and make suggestions/comments on the talk page. We need as many neutral comments as we can get so the poll run as smoothly as possible and is able to give a good idea of the communities expectations regarding date linking on the project—from User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Note The first phase of this poll will start on 30 March. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)