Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 6

GAnominee small=yes

It looks like the GAnominee is not aware of the small option, per Wikipedia:Talk page templates. Could this be addressed? I didn't want to make the change in case I'm stepping on toes. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually atricles are only nominiees for a short time (2-3 weeks) so as a tempory thing it is rather important, and probably shouldn't be squeezed into a small=yes type box... although that is only my opinion... --T-rex 19:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with T-rex. Quadzilla99 12:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet "small=yes" is supported by {{fac}}, which is also intended for short term usage... — RJH (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added the option. Nobody is forced to use it, but talk pages where some templates support the option and some don't are annoying. Kusma (討論) 18:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Guide to reviewing Good Articles: DRAFT PROPOSAL

Gicen the discussion above, I realized that what is really needed is a more extensive guide to reviewing Good Articles. I was WP:BOLD and started a Draft version as a subpage of my userpage. The draft can currently be found at: User:Jayron32/Guide to reviewing Good Articles. Please make any changes as you see fit, and leave any comments you have on the talk page. I propose a goal of having the draft finalized within 2 weeks from today (by April 13) and moved to the GA project by that date. Thank you all for your attention to this. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you've already been over over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles. Dropping a note on their talk page was both helpful and courteous. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/GA_nominees_task_force and improving that page. I think it's a good idea. I'll add the proposal to my watchlist and join in the development as I have time. Vassyana 23:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Can Disambiguation pages be GAs?

So, can disambiguation pages become good articles? I see no reason why not, but I'd like others opinions. This should be written into policy somewhere. Gutworth 02:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would a Disambig be a GA, a disambiguation page isn't even an article....(Though I understand they can sometimes get a bit large when there's too many things to disambiguate) Homestarmy 02:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is due to the nomination for Lincoln. Initially, I thought it was just a broken link, but the description with the nomination stated that the nominator wanted the disambiguation page to be reviewed. I removed it yesterday, thinking it was an April Fool's Joke, but the nominator re-nominated it. I'll let somebody else remove it again. --Nehrams2020 02:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the lead of that disambig seems to be commenting on actual information on the name, assuming verification could be found, a whole new stub could probably be made on Lincoln (name). I don't think a Disambig is supposed to normally have much content like that though, but either way, there's no references at all, so its clearly not a GA whether Disambig or not. Homestarmy 02:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, I don't think that any disambiguation page should be of GA quality as they would never be able to meet the criteria. I think we'd have a serious problem if the Dab pages started getting passed as GAs! --Nehrams2020 03:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I asked this question was the Lincoln nomination. I agree with you. If it was Lincoln (name) then it could be nominated. Where should we put this in policy? Or is it already present? Gutworth 16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, it just seems kind of self-evident to me, a Disambig by definition simply isn't an article.... Homestarmy 02:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Politician bio?

I see the "law and politics" was separated into the main section and a subsection called "politician biography". But this subsection includes bios of lawyers who are not politicians. Should it also add a subsection for "Lawyer and judge biography"? Wooyi 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

go ahead and do it...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wooyi 01:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Government agencies

Can someone check out why the government agencies sub section is located where it is? Also, the location of the Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Services article is misplaced. Not sure the protocol for moving it. --Daysleeper47 12:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

oldid

Is there anything you all can do here to encourage reviewers promoting GAs to follow your instructions? Almost every FAC has to be prepped for GimmeBot conversion to {{ArticleHistory}} by manually searching for and adding the oldid to the GA nom, since very few promoting GAs do that. It's time consuming, and it would really help if reviewers would add it at the time they promote GA. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the instructions. Previously this was mentioned parenthetically as an option. TimVickers 15:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim; anything helps! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the newer GAs will have their diff links put on the Good articles by quality tables. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New/further discussion, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan

This process is so random; will someone please deal with Ronald Reagan, who was passed by a brand new editor and then submitted to FAC within a day. Smells like socks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Other ones that may need to be checked, passed by this editor under various names since 28 March 2007, prior to which he was not involved with WP:GAC (I've dealt with the failed ones as far as I can tell by just reverting):

• United States Naval Academy
• Exponentiation
• Tax protester constitutional arguments
• Battle of Thermopylae
• People's Republic of China Orderinchaos 06:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Naval academy one, I remember that one quite well, (Gave it a bit of a shellacking when I failed it.) and several editors do seem to of pitched in to fix the article, if all the green check marks in the archive can be trusted. If this sockpuppet person is just randomly passing articles, they picked one which seems unusually close to standards, and their comment doesn't seem malicious, it sounds like many very short reviews i've seen people give. Homestarmy 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, several of this user's comments sound like they honestly read the article and graded them fairly.... Homestarmy 16:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Shahbag

The article has become a good article candidate now. May be it should removed from the list of good article nominees. The backlogs here are already huge. Aditya Kabir 14:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean Featured Article candidate, yes remove it. M3tal H3ad 01:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

Really. Do we need to review an article the instant it is posted. There are a lot of old articles up here that need reviewed. IvoShandor 15:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

True, I agree. Having said that though, I think some of the more obvious fails are good to get done out of the way also. LuciferMorgan 07:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. Most definitely. I don't disagree, I do it myself (did two last night). I guess to be more specific, I noticed a couple articles on hold the same day they were posted. Seemed kind of unfair to some who have been waiting awhile. The backlog in the music and tv sections is pretty large and those should be cleaned up. I normally avoid those areas because I don't deal with enough of those types of articles, usually, to know what to expect in a GA for those topics. IvoShandor 12:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm slowly cleaning up the music area, 2-3 a day. It's down to four one day then up to 12 in three days. M3tal H3ad 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A problem is that me and M3tal H3ad are members of the Slayer WikiProject and cannot review our own articles due to conflicts of interest. We currently have 3 GACs up, one of which is 1st in the music queue ("Jihad"). LuciferMorgan 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I read this and thought 'yes, I agree' then found an article that looked interesting, placed it on hold, and realised it had only been nominated today... less than perfect for the GA system but I am far more motivated to review high-importance articles or those on topics which interest me! The Land 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

GA is an absolute joke (and not funny)

I'm sick of this process being run like a joke, and it's pathetic. Now, at Talk:Jihad (song), an administrator (yes an administrator, and no wonder that means nothing to me) writes the worst GA review I have ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes on. Everything he wrote was frankly rubbish, and he cannot review to save his goddamn life. But because the process is unbureacratic, I cannot do anything whatsoever about it can I?

But oh yes, someone will mention to me GAR? No, I've waited three weeks for this article to get reviewed, and I don't wish to wait another five for that process to run its course. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic. LuciferMorgan 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He is referring to my review. [1] I think someone needs to AGF and take a step back. My comments are relevant and, cough, polite. If you cannot take constructive criticism from peers, then this aspect of Wikipedia is not for you. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with The JPS. If LuciferMorgan is confused, he/she should ask more questions. Alientraveller 20:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Confused? I am in no way confused and have used GAC before. This review is an absolute joke. LuciferMorgan 21:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering your Barnstars, it's a shame to see you acting uncivil. Just discuss it further. If you disagree, review or renominate. Alientraveller 21:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Acting uncivil? Let's be clear here - I'm calling it how I see it, minus the pseudo-niceties which have dogged Wikipedia. This review was rubbish, and that's my opinion - that's not being civil or uncivil, but stating an opinion. I don't see the point in sugarcoating things. LuciferMorgan 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I did propose several days ago to modify the GA/R rules a bit to result in much faster turnaround times based on when certain supermajorities develop quickly, (As they almost universally do) but nobodies answered me :( . Homestarmy 20:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As the article has not been failed, only commented upon, GAR is not appropriate. Please everybody, just calm down a bit. TimVickers 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very appropriate and I am going straight for it. The first two points by the reviewer are rubbish, and as for the last one he failed to clarify. GAR is the only option for this one. LuciferMorgan 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, if you don't understand, keep asking. Alientraveller 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I often give preliminary comments on articles without actually passing or failing them, if that's what JPS is doing here, then another reviewer who actually wants to pass/fail the article can certainly just ignore JPS's comments. (I've often found some reviewers do ignore other random concerns people sometimes bring up...) Homestarmy 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There Lucifer, no need to count your chickens before they hatch. Alientraveller 21:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying in that phrase. Anyhow, I've gone for GAR which I think is the best solution really. In fact, I think the process would run much smoother if it worked like FAC. LuciferMorgan 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The reviewer did not pass or fail the candidate but only commented on it. You don't need to appeal a decision that has not been made. TimVickers 21:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Anyway, I do agree that we need to streamline the process; some articles are stuck here for a long time. The question is how? — Deckiller 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As this case shows, streamlining the process further risks annoying the people who work hard on an article and then feel that a review did not fully reflect the work they put in. TimVickers 21:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But that's just it, it doesn't appear to of been the final review of sorts, it looks like just someone putting the article on hold for reasons which may or may not be legitimate. (I haven't actually examined the reasons much) Homestarmy 21:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, I was talking in general terms and only using this as an example of the misunderstandings that can happen in an abbreviated process. TimVickers 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think if GAC worked like FAC (ie. articles are reviewed, but according to GA criteria) I think it'll groom articles much better for FAC. While voting support or oppose, reviewers can always throw in some constructive criticism for a possible future FAC push. Even if an FAC style GAC was only a week, I still think it'd work better. The good GA reviewers can always still review the articles of course. LuciferMorgan 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I am uncertain about which of the following points you disagree with:

• Do you think that the "Music and Structure" section does not need to be expanded?

I think it should indeed, and will with whatever resources I can which is a pledge. See, this is what you don't seem to get: yes the structure can be expanded and I will do so, but the "reviewer" (a joke at that) is asking for an in depth description of the lyrics which has nothing whatsoever to do with "Music and structure". GAR reviewers have asked for the "Music and structure" section to be expanded and I will do so by expanding that with more info about "Music and structure" - is this clear enough?

The admin's review is clearly asking for a lame regurgitation of the whole song lyrics, which firstly is copyright violation and two would do nothing for the article. Jayron32 - even song FAs don't have lyrics paraphrased so why should this song article? Exactly, it shouldn't and I won't. LuciferMorgan 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do you think that informal language should not be cleaned up?

What informal language? The reviewer only stated one example which has been fixed. He hasn't stated any others.

• Do you think that direct quotes in the lead should not be referenced?

No I don't since they're sourced in the body. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article and all the info in the body - citing the same

• Do you think that the article should still not pass if the changes are made?

I don't understand the question, though if you're asking me will I address the reviewers invalid, nonsense concerns then no I have no intentions of. Any concerns which are actually valid are welcome.

I tend to agree with the reviewer on all points they have made, and that if the fixes they request are made the article would probably be GA. The review explains what the problems are, and explains how to fix them. Where has the reviewer acted inappropriately? You cite frustration with this review, but give no specific problems with it? It would help to know what you find substandard in this review. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the above and am offended by the fact you could even attempt to defend such a lame, awful review. I have given in depth specific problems with it over and over again Jayron32. If you cannot see what's wrong with the review, then carefully read over what I responded to each point again. LuciferMorgan 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that there's a GA/R over this, perhaps it would be better to continue all of article-related discussion in the GA/R, instead of having it in two places like this? Homestarmy 00:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Good article Criteria

Hi everyone. A week or two ago, I started a proposed reworking of the criteria; the changes are not major, but there are enough to influence the review template and other things. Only three users have commented so far, and I feel more people should be involved in the discussion before the changes are implemented. Thanks. — Deckiller 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And there is another work:Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Shouldn't we merge them--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles is for the process of reviewing the articles itself while Deckiller is talking about rewording of the Good Article criteria. It could use a few more users who could add some input on anything else that needs to be added/reworked about the criteria. --Nehrams2020 04:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, i've seen people become rather confused more than once because the criteria was changed and very few to no people cared until they tried putting the criteria in practice. Homestarmy 13:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviewers

The process seems thin on reviewers. Is there any reason why? LuciferMorgan 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I normally just hang around GA/R and read the 1.0 log, but its always seemed to me that there's a good group of reviewers working around, the log does show signifigant activity, and the majority of reviews i've been seeing seem fairly good. It's just that people add new candidates rather quickly, and whenever I get in the mood to review, it takes me a pretty large chunk of time to review just six articles or so.... Homestarmy 12:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. I work on the principle that if I submit something for GA I'll review an article to balance things out, so I'm not adding to the list. Doesn't seem to be popular practice though - maybe it should be compulsory ;-) 4u1e 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea (though not making it compulsory, of course). I recently added a candidate and did a couple of reviews in the list above it, partly on principle and partly to help get mine to the top of the list faster. The top of the page already says "When you nominate an article, please consider also choosing another article from the list to review" so I don't think there's much more we can say there, though. Could it be more prominent? Or would that be too much like nagging? Mike Christie (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea for common reviewers to follow. But I'm not sure we want to promote it as standard practice for everyone that submits an article. There's still quite a few nominations for GA status that are seriously lacking in several criteria, and if we ask everyone to review an article, we could get some more bad reviews by people who still don't understand the criteria well. Dr. Cash 21:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new backlog template which lists links to categories with the worst backlog (either the most articles, or articles that have been on the page for a long time). Hopefully, this will help direct reviewers to those categories first. Feel free to edit/modify this template as the backlog either goes away or changes. Dr. Cash 00:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sports section

May I request that 'Sports' be made into its own section, rather than a part of the 'Everyday Life' section? Sports nominees are growing in number. Wrad 20:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

two tags

If an article fails GA, and then subsequently passes it at a later date, do you replace the GAfailed tag with the GA tag or do you have both the failed and the passed one kept on the talk page? SGGH 09:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Replace the failed one with the pass so it doesn't fill the talk page with banners. M3tal H3ad 10:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, use the Article history template, which will keep all of the information in one nice little expanded banner, and will help store the history for later FA status. Dr. Cash 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

criteria on in-line citations

User:jackturner3 raised an issue as to why I failed Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) due to no in-line citations, when the criteria only says it is desired but not required. Wouldn't a lack of in-line cites immediately show it is could be factually inaccurate? Unless anyone objects, I will re-write the criteria to in-line cites being absolutely necessary. Alientraveller 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That might be a bad idea, we're almost ready to change the criteria to Deckiller's implementation, and its quite clear that inline cites are not mandatory for the most part. As for your article in question, a lack of inline citations typically leads to large chunks of article not being referenced, (Since its almost impossible to keep track of what references what) do all of the refs look comphrehensive on the subject? If most of them are very specific and it doesn't look like they have topics which cover most of the article, I think you'd have a better time arguing that the article isn't cited very well that way. Homestarmy 15:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible for an article with inline citations to be factually inaccurate. Perhaps it makes it easier to check but inline citations do nothing per se to increase or assure accuracy. A suitable list of references even if not associated with individual statements could make a good article. So I would not support making them absolutely necessary. |→ Spaully^₪† 16:16, 17 April 2007 (GMT)

Inform

Please leave the Inform nomination in place this time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.2.91.25 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Under the heading "How to nominate a page", the first instruction is: "Before nominating, ensure that you are a registered user..." Please also remember to be civil. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I told him in my edit summary :/. Homestarmy 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If it makes him feel better, I'll nominate Inform in his place, just because WP:ILIKEIT and am registered. :P You all can decide whether it's a good article. --Masamage ♫ 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make personal attacks against EAlacy. I've given you a warning on your talk page. Mahanga^Talk 21:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On hold over 7 days

Is it OK if I plan to go through and delist everything on hold over 7 days? That's the limit the page gives, but I wondered if there was any existing etiquette. I plan to remove those listings, and place fail notices on the talk pages, with a reason of "no response to hold". If nobody objects I'll do that in the next day or so. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds great to me. --Masamage ♫ 03:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, seven days is the upper limit generally, make sure there aren't some extenuating circumstances on the talk page though. IvoShandor 03:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I went through and failed about five or six articles that had obviously not addressed the concerns raised in the review. There were about five others that weren't so clear cut (i.e. reviewer got distracted/busy etc.) so I dropped a message on the talk page, that could clean out about 5 or six more of the holds as well. IvoShandor 08:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

GA criteria revision

Hi everyone. After 2 and a half weeks of discussion, the revised GA criteria have been posted on WP:WIAGA. None of the changes are major; the criterion have been consolidated and "succinctified", and a lead has been added that explains GAs in a nutshell and the difference between WIAGA and WIAFA. — Deckiller 09:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Smomo 11:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITIES - city template

A new suggested template has been proposed at WikiProject Cities. Since the main purpose of the template is to assist editors in bringing articles to GA and FA status, I thought I would mention it here to seek comments on it. Please leave comments on the WikiProject Cities Talk Page, not here. Dr. Cash 03:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Function for a GA candidates bot

Daniel Vandersluis has very kindly volunteered to write a bot for GAC to help track overdue noms and so on. I have created a set of draft specifications at User:Mike Christie/GACbot. If you are interested, please edit as you see fit and add notes to the talk page to discuss the specs. I have also posted a note to Daniel to join that conversation -- he asked me to give him some specific ideas as to what we would find useful. Mike Christie (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination problems

There seems to be a problem with the GA on hold for Justification (theology). It seems that the nomination was put on hold by the nominator on April 9 (it is now well past the 7 day on hold) who posted a list of concerns. It appears that users on the talk page are unfamiliar with GA process. Would someone with a bit more experience around here please take a look at the talk page and chime in. Thanks in advance. IvoShandor 06:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Backlog - Where we stand

My count reveals something like 167 total nominations, of those 38 are currently on hold and one is "under review." Just FYI. IvoShandor 14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A handy bot function would be to do a count (daily?) and store it in a subpage; maybe keep some history so we could see if things are getting better or worse. Perhaps that could also drive the backlog tag of which sections are in worst shape. Mike Christie (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be handy. I have no idea about such things, however. IvoShandor 14:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a suggestion for a bot at the bot request page; please comment there if interested. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone has volunteered to take on the bot creation, do others think this is useful? IvoShandor 06:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a note about this below at Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates#Function for a GA candidates bot. Mike Christie (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

GA award

I have proposed a WikiProject award, the Good Article Badge. Though it is a project award it is meant to be handed out to anyone for great contributions to GAs or GAC or GAR etc. See the proposal at : Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#WikiProject_Good_articles, voice your opinion and discuss there. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

More reviewers needed

Man, this place needs more reviewers. Do not many people seem interested to review these nominees?165.91.48.33 07:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Very true. Why not register and then become one yourself? :D - Alex valavanis 13:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. The GA criteria are much more succinct now, so they should be less intimidating for potential reviewers and/or writers. — Deckiller 13:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to write an essay about the asymmetric power relationship between FA (and to a lesser degree, GA) reviewers and the reviewees... that's on my list of things to think about.. --Ling.Nut 14:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Decided to become a reviewer, and just did my first article (a hold). Looks to be fun. - Merzbow 04:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, I hope that it stays fun for you. We appreciate all of the help we can get. Take your pick of the 130+ articles you want to review next. But if possible, try to get to the articles at Template:WikiProjectGATasks or ones that were nominated in the first week of April. That way we can finish off all of the March articles before we start doing articles that were nominated only a couple days to a few weeks ago. Keep up the good work. --Nehrams2020 04:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I was gonna ask if there was a centralized list of all articles in chronological order of nomination. Kewl. - Merzbow 05:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I keep the candidates page on my watchlist and then update the template to have the oldest articles that need to be reviewed. It will hopefully make it fairer to some of the editors who sometimes have to wait more than a month for their article to be reviewed. This is why we need more editors. Hopefully we can bring the waiting time down to a maximum period of two-three weeks. I will try to keep the template constantly updated so that this will continue to be fair. --Nehrams2020 05:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be done by a bot populating a sortable table... the table could be sorted on date (of course) but also category and subcategory (you know, like category Arts & subcategory Films and related articles), and status (hold, active). Bot request, anyone? Ling.Nut 05:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It's kind of a hassle to look through the 100+ articles to find the oldest ones. --Nehrams2020 06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Actually I used to be a programmer, and I've been wanting for a long long time to learn how to make bots. This one seems harmless enough; would only write to a specific report page... Please hold off on the request. I want to research the matter. OK? Ling.Nut 06:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This request was actually started before this thread was. If you look back. You might want to comment here, User talk:Mike Christie/GACbot and the bot request page, which was added on April 17. I am sure folks are willing to hold off. IvoShandor 06:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) No go ahead. I was somehow deluded into believing that I have the time to climb the learning curve.... I'll look at the request and see if I can add any more info.. Ling.Nut 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Daniel Vandersluis still intends to work on the bot, but he has indicated he's pretty busy right now. Ling, if you'd like to try it, leave him a note -- but it sounds as if he has a similar bot already so this is a pretty natural extension of its capabilities.

In the meantime, Merzbow and any others looking for the oldest articles to review -- the backlog template at the top of the Good Article Candidates page should always include any categories with articles over a month old, so that's one way to shorten the search. That backlog template has to be updated manually, which is one reason we'd like a bot, but it's been kept fairly well up to date so far. I think at the moment only the Meteorology section has an unreviewed article over a month old. Mike Christie (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK can we call it the Say Hey Bot, as a tribute to Willie Mays? : ) IvoShandor 09:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

GA reviewer fixing articles they review?

What's accepted practice regarding if/how a GA reviewer can improve the articles they are reviewing? If I'm reviewing an article and come across things that are trivial improvements, like capitalization, obvious wikilinks, can I just go ahead and fix them myself? If I'm putting the article on hold? If the fixes would allow a GA pass? - Merzbow 06:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you can if you desire to. Just make sure you mention it on the talk page so that the editors of the page know that you did it and will hopefully be able to correct similar mistakes in the future. Just make sure you don't make any large edits, you can just put the article on hold for that. --Nehrams2020 07:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Backlog template

The backlog template currently shows both categories with ten or more articles, and articles over a month. The "long categories" isn't really an issue, I think; after all, if a category gets ten nominations in a day, none of them are overdue. So I suggest that we change the template to list articles that are due for a review, rather than categories.

I'd also suggest that the template links those article names to the GAC section holding those articles, so that potential reviewers can see if someone else has picked up those articles and put a GAReview tag on them. If the template links directly to the article, it would be easy for two people to review the same article without realizing it.

Any comments? If not, I'll edit the backlog per the above, and list the four or five oldest unreviewed articles. Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No comments, so I'm going to go ahead and make this change. Please revert and discuss here if anyone disagrees. Mike Christie (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the article needing review section to a sub-subpage to make it compatible with {{WikiProjectGATasks}}. Tarret 18:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that automatically updated by a bot (or possibly in the future) or is it by hand now? --Nehrams2020 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently it's updated by hand, however if anyone wants they can make a bot to do it. Tarret 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Inform the nominator

There is written:Optionally inform the nominator about the decision.

Why there's written Optionally?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess because the editor comments on the talk page and that's all that should be necessary really. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 04:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think put a comment on the talk page of nominator has good effects. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone nominates an article right at the top of the GAC page it says the info about being put on hold. I would think they would know that, if I ever nominate something I'll be sure to keep an eye on it fa sho. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 01:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Making the nomination section bot-parseable

I just wanted to let everyone know that I have added a comment to the top and bottom of the Nominations section so that the bot that is being created to report on GAC statistics will know what is (supposed to be) a nomination and what isn't (the comments are of the form <!-- NOMINATION CATEGORIES BEGIN/END HERE -->). By doing it this way, extra content can be added around the nominations section, and I don't have to hardcode what the bot should look for; rather, it just needs to examine everything between the comments. As such, please do not remove and/or change the comments, as it will cause the bot to not be able to parse the page properly. If you are interested, the bot is not yet functional, but just in the planning stage. A development document is available at User:Mike Christie/GACbot. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside review sufficient?

A university professor has reviewed Islam article.[2] His review is very postive. Does it provide sufficient grounds for raising this article to GA status? --Aminz 07:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Although it is great that he enjoyed the article and thought it was well-written, he would have had to assess the article by the GA criteria. Otherwise, it would be difficult to discern if this professor thought that it was GA or even FA quality. I'm sure this review could help to influence a GA reviewer of the article, but again, it may have no effect. It would be great if we could do this though, I'd be printing all of these candidates out and help to get rid of the backlog by having all of my professors reviewing these left and right. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. It does look like a well-written article, and I'm sure it will be reviewed in the next few weeks (unfortunately). --Nehrams2020 07:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Theatre

I really don't know where to go with that, as GA/R does not seem appropriate, and I believe no other GA-related talk page would be more appropriate. On the 1st of May I reviewed the GA-nominated above article (nota bene - nominated as a result of being a WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the Week), and gave a rather lenghty account of my review on the talk page, listing some problems I have found, and concluding that I have to fail the article in view of them. Immediately afterwards, User:TonyTheTiger, who is, as I understand, the head of WikiProject Chicago, and nominates Chicago-related articles frequently, some changes to the article, following up on some of the issues I have mentioned. Until then it sounds just alrighty.

But then I was quite surprised to read in a message from Tony the he intends to renominate the article for GA immediately - and indeed he did so. While there were indeed quite a few edits done to the article in the short time span between my review and the renomination (and a few more after the renomination), I have seen they tackled on the rather more minor issues and not the major ones for which I have failed the nomination before. I indicated that in a message to Tony. A further message from Tony followed, where Tony basically explained he believed the article is CLOSER to WIAGA, and that it would take time (!) to make up for the other deficiencies of the article. I the proceeded to explain to Tony that I believe that GAN is for articles that are believed to really meet WIAGA, not for ones that "got closer", and that I believe making sure all the concerns raised by a reviewer should be dealt with until the article can be renominated. I have not got a reply yet.

I do believe it is improper to renominate article immediately after it being failed, without making sure all the things the article was failed for are corrected. I am not sure whether there is any procedure that would provide for automatic "denomination" in such cases, as I would not like to circumnavigate that by simply re-reviewing the article myself and failing it for the same issues as before, as we could go on like that forever, and I guess that's not what it is all about... What should I do then? PrinceGloria 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he intends improving it while its in the GAC queue? LuciferMorgan 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That might be it. Homestarmy 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

But, well, isn't it a bit against the rules? While it would be nice to review the oldest nominations first, we can technically review any GAN at any time (and it happens all the time, of the oldest nominations only Ohlone was reviewed recently (by yourself IIRC)... ANYWAY, anybody can review Chicago Theatre now, and duly fail it for many good reasons already listed in the talk page. So I guess unless the article is ready, it is improper to nominate it. I mean, I could nominate a stub I've just created and say I will expand it while it is in a queue. It just further encourages nominating whatever (and cluttering the queue) in hope of it passing somehow... PrinceGloria 00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. I also encourage you to look more closely into the nominations from WikiProject Chicago - while I admire how much the project does to improve Wikipedia in their area of interest, I believe their noms are more often than not pretty much undercooked, and I am actually even quite wary of the quality of some of their PASSED GAs...

HELLO? PrinceGloria 07:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that many of their noms are undercooked and several of the listed articles may be as well, that is why Marquette Building is up for review now. As is, has few comments but the deficiencies addressed thus far are only the minor ones, not the major ones, and why it should be delisted. IvoShandor 07:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see we agree on that (as you could see in the GA/R probably), but I would also like to hear your (meaning plural "you", both Ivo's and other users involved in GA reviewing) on the general issue of renominating an article immediately after its failing, without tackling all the issues listed by the reviewer. PrinceGloria 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It has to be taken on a case by case basis. The problem I see is a lot of insuffciently broad articles on topics that should have plenty of secondary sources to choose from, at least with Marquette Building. I mean if I can get an article like Ogle County Courthouse out of a relatively obscure topic then exemplary examples of anything should at least be up to that standard. That being said, some articles can have problems addressed quickly, which is namely what on hold should be used for. Articles that fail the broadness criteria big time should just be failed, and quick failed if that was a legitimate reason for failing and the article is renominated without addressing that issue (or other major ones), then there is always GA review. I think these processes really do a good job of policing the list and the candidates. Sure one slips through every now and then and there are plenty of premature noms but in general they are weeded out, even if they are initially passed. My two and half cents and or pesos or other monetary unit. IvoShandor 09:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So do you want to say it might be OK in some cases to disregard the reviewer's comments and renominate for GA as is? PrinceGloria 09:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen what appeared to be bad faith reviews/delistings. It's not outside the realm of possibilities but if the concerns are legitimate and have been unaddressed or mostly so, it should be quick failed if it is renominated. I don't think that would be unwarranted with: "previous GA review concerns unaddressed" or something like that, see what others say too as this is simply what I view to be the general course of action on items such as this. IvoShandor 09:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If the intention is to improve an article while in GAC, that might not be a good move but its not unheard of, I wouldn't do it myself. Anyway, someone else will probably fail it if it really doesn't meet the criteria. Even if it passes you can request a review. IvoShandor 09:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if a review or delisting was improper or done in bad faith, this is when you got to GA/R. And while technically of course this is not the end of the world that the article was renominated, if we allow people to do so it will just clutter the queue (as I said, this article is "failable" at any time) and encourage disregarding the reviews (what's the point of paying any attention to them, if you can just start over). I guess if there isn't any explicit statement regulating renominations, it would be time to introduce one. PrinceGloria 09:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is a problem, I think it would most probably work itself out, afterall, increasing the backlog with obviously failable candidates would get old for any nominator, who wants to wait a month to fail over and over again. : ) IvoShandor 09:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Massacre

There's been some discussion of stability recently on WP:GA/R, in relation to the 2007 Longhorn football team (since that season hasn't started). I mentioned a comment made by Raul654, the FAC director, pointing out that the Virginia Tech Massacre was too unstable to include. LuciferMorgan pointed out that Raul654's comments do not govern GAC in any sense. I agree with Lucifer completely on this, but I think stability is an issue for both GAC and FAC, and some considerations are going to be the same for each.

Now an editor has nominated Virginia Tech massacre as a GA, commenting in the edit summary "hope it isn't too soon". There's still a lot of activity going on at the article, per the history page. I think this should be quick-failed for stability, but I hesitate to do so myself. I'd appreciate another opinion on this one, since at least one editor felt my arguments were flawed on the Longhorns article. Mike Christie (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• For me, there is no way that article could be considered stable enough to meet GA criteria #5, looking at the diff from April 29 to the 30th there seems to have been quite a bit of changing going on. I suspect if you went back a few days more for another diff it would be even more pronounced. I would say this article needs time, the events are still open ended, really, IMO. Too much is still unknown. Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth. IvoShandor 11:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree. There's no harm in putting it off; it can become a GA just as soon as it calms down. --Masamage ♫ 15:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • If I'd realised it was that bad, I guess I would never have left this comment. For the record, ignore it (or even remove it, if you see fit). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nominating this for good article status is premature when the event is still news and investigations have barely begun. Wryspy 18:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Further future articles question

Since we're already on the subject, what about any articles that are labeled with future or current event tags? We've failed articles in the past for being about films that won't come out for several months, yet have plenty of sources. Right now there are several articles that are on buildings that have yet to be built (Joffrey Tower), or currently occurring events (Republic Protests, although it was recently failed for stability issues). Do we say that all future articles of any types (space missions, buildings, films, books, etc.) not qualify to be nominated? Or do we be lenient in some cases? We've had this discussion before at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?/Archive 2#Future films, but I think we should clearly state how the criteria declares the stability of future/current event articles. What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 07:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it depends, very much, on the topic and the time table. A building under construction should be fine because the topic itself isn't going to develop too fast to ensure that any additions to a GA status article are going to adhere to the GA criteria. A book that is slated to come out in a few months, however, wouldn't be able to adhere to that because upon its release too much information would be coming out too quickly to ensure that all of it added to the article would meet the criteria, this wouldn't preclude it from being nominated later, of course, as was suggested with the Virginia Tech Massacre article. In addition, even far flung future events can meet GA in my opinion, the future building example is a good one, future spaceflights (I have a nomination for a long delayed project up right now, slated to launch in 2015). Anyway, just my two cents. IvoShandor 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ivo, each article that is over a future topic will likely have its own special situation. I think it would be better to handle such articles on a case by case basis. Homestarmy 12:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are there some future items though that may qualify as not being stable? I agree that buildings and space missions may be alright, but maybe films and books don't necessarily qualify. I'm not trying to limit the inclusion of specific types of articles, I just want to make sure that editors are properly nominating articles that have the possiblity of being passed. No editor wants to see their article sit in GAC for a month and then have a reviewer come in and fail it over a stability issue, possibly bringing editor to take the article directly to GAR. If there are clearly stated limitations on some future/current events, we can avoid this. Of course there are case by case issues, but I'm sure there are some that will probably always be unstable until the occur/are released. --Nehrams2020 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is relevant. Some things certainly are generally more unstable. But this could be addressed by a note on the candidates page to the effect of: if your nomination is about a future event (etc.) consider GA criteria #5 carefully to avoid having an article failed for stability issues after waiting for the backlog to clear for a review. Or something, the wording isn't important, just a general, "hey, did you think of this?" type note. IvoShandor 09:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates

Can someone please remove some of the excessive templates, its beginning to take a while to get to the actual list. Tarret 20:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Skiptotoctalk}} could work. DoomsDay349 21:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Article with image problems passed

Please review Inform, which was recently passed despite having no fair-use rationales. --Masamage ♫ 07:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you may put it up for WP:GA/R yourself, it is a very legitimate reason to do so (if it really is that way). PrinceGloria 07:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are no other issues, just require the editors to quickly add FURs or the article will be removed from its GA status. Also, make sure that the reviewer has been informed on the guidelines of the GA criteria. --Nehrams2020 07:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

'Kay, it's been fixed. --Masamage ♫ 00:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

StatisticianBot updating GAC stats (trial)

Daniel Vandersluis's bot, StatisticianBot, is now running in trial mode to update some GAC stats. Take a look at:

• Wikipedia:Good article candidates/Report -- general stats
• Template:GACstats -- a new template to allow automatic transclusion of some stats
• Wikipedia:Good article candidates/backlog/items -- auto update of the backlog list

The functionality definition is (for now) at User:Mike Christie/GACbot and its talk page; that may move to a StatBot subpage at some point in the future; that'll be up to Daniel. Any comments, please post here to give Daniel some feedback (or just let him know you appreciate his work). Mike Christie (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing I see that looks like a bug: the count of total noms in the top level sections in the summary shows zeros; e.g. Arts has "0" nominations, though the subsections are totalled correctly. Mike Christie (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The totals are correct. Arts has 0 because there are no nominations directly under Arts. Contrast that to "top level" categories such as Philosophy and religion, which has nominations. Does this clear it up? —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense -- I had assumed it was totting up the subsections. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: the bot approval group has approved StatisticianBot, and it will now run daily. Thanks, Daniel; this will save tedious time on the backlog update, in particular. Mike Christie (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing the report provides that should be very useful is the list of holds over 7 days old. This can be reviewed periodically to see what needs to be failed for staying on hold too long. Mike Christie (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to post how useful this very feature is (just before Mike posted himself) - this morning I have identified an article with a long-overdue hold (and noticed my very own hold was overude to), and promptly removed it from the GAC list, as it has not been improved following the review. This is a wonderful tool to help filter out articles cluttering the list because they became forgotten, or somebody is trying to push the limits of the "On Hold" feature.

Overall, the Bot is simply wonderful - I love it, it is not only useful, but also sometimes provides for unintentional humour. Like, one might wonder how the subject would react to that line...

Publishing and journalism (8): x 1; x 1; Oldest: Anna Wintour

More seriously, I believe this fine Bot should be used as extensively as possible - updating the old article count is one good feature, but I believe the stats should be prominently linked from the GAC page too, and perhaps stat results somehow transcluded in the list (categories with old noms and/or old noms themselves marked red or something, same for overdue holds). At the same time, the page could be cleaned up, as with all those templates before and after the main one it starts looking rather unprofessional. I was wondering whether we could integrate the notice on wikilinking the article's name in summaries and all to the main template, or just add a warning for new reviewers to acquaint themselves with the entire instructions before making their first review. PrinceGloria 11:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the time, but I agree a redesign is in order; someone higher up this page suggested the same thing. Mike Christie (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a question - is the bot updating from this page, or from Category:Good article nominees? I recently went through and failed about a dozen articles that had been nommed six months ago or more but were never added to this page (probably from editors who didn't know how to complete the process)...if the bot is counting from the category, such nominations will be caught much faster. Chubbles 02:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's working from this page. Checking the category could be done too, I assume. Maybe the best thing to do there would be to add another section to the report it produces now, which would list any nominees in the category but not on the candidates page. Mike Christie (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Eligibility

Is Chicago Landmark too much of a list to be analyzed or can we apply for WP:GA before pursuing WP:FC? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The article title doesn't indicate that its supposed to be a list article, I think moving the list to List of Chicago Landmarks and having this main article deal primarily with the non-list content would be more reasonable. However, ignore the large list, and I don't know if its sufficiently broad anymore... Homestarmy 23:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about the text which may only be broad enough to serve as the intro to a WP:FL. I was hoping to pursue a WP:GA before renaming and then pursue WP:FLC. Would it recieve consideration. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a slight bias because I am involved in editing this document but for the good of the article reaching list or article GA (and then Featured)I comment as follows. I note that Homestarmy makes a valid point on name of article which does not indicate a list. Further whilst I understand that WP:MOS is not quite as stringent in the case of WP:GAC I am concerned how a list (or any article well over 100kbs already) can possibly meet Manual of Style policy. Can any article or list breach size rules to this extent? Does anyone have an example of a Featured list or article of a size over 100kbs?--VS ^talk 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any FA's of that size, but check the city section of the FA list, there might be a few in there, city articles are generally some of the most enormous on Wikipedia. Homestarmy 19:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response (actually of interest the auto calculator has readjusted Chicago Landmark to 98kbs this evening but there is heaps to come) To your point I have already looked - don't see any immediately. Charles Darwin is the longest featured anything I know of at 99kbs (just under WP:MOS policy but loads fast given not many images.--VS ^talk 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Campaign history of the Roman military clocks in at 143 kB as measured by this script. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

1 (New York City Subway service)

Imdanumber1 placed the article here. I marked the history section as needing references, and he reverted. Can someone take care of this? --NE2 10:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Me and the Legendary Ranger really worked hard on the article by putting the history back in place, while I added references. He hasn't even tried to look for anything to make the article pass GA. He probably wants it to fail so others will feel low about themselves. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

NE2: You are correct in doing what you did. In any case, the GA has now failed, due to Proseline. G1ggy ^{Talk - Chalk} 00:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC and conflict of Interest

Recently, two articles from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team were promoted to Good Articles based on review from members of the team who hadn't worked on either article. I think feedback from the community is important here, and would prefer to have no Conflict of Interest (or apearance of Conflict of Interest) issues. The articles in question are Scelidosaurus (passed February 22nd) and Lambeosaurus (passed today). Both articles were reviewed by good faith editors who did not feel there was any conflict of interest. Neither one had contributed to either article, but as our GA and FA passes are feathers in the WP:DINO team's cap, I think a review from a non-Project member might be important. Things such as clarity, etc, might be issues with someone who has never read or worked on a WP:Dinosaurs article. Is it possible for someone to take a second look at these two articles, and make sure they truly represent GA material? I think they do: I nominated both of them, but would prefer community feedback. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. LaraLove^T/_C 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling articles

I have quick failed several wrestling articles per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Please see the review before nominating a wrestling article. Quadzilla99 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, the referencing system was the same in all articles. Quadzilla99 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What is being proposed is ridiculous, WWE's contracts prevent wrestler from commention on events since all material released by the company is copyrighted beyond belief, no better references can be found online and most of these wrestlers have never been featured in any book. -凶 17:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mess of tags

There really are way too many tags at the top of this page. Each tag or message appears at least twice on the page; for instance, the notice about making sure to wikilink is repeated twice in tags (with only the icon and background colour changed), plus is in the main instructions. Is this really necessary? As far as I'm concerned, the only necessary one is the backlog notice, though I'm not even sure if its placement is ideal. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 15:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's necessary. The twin edit summary wikilink notices are there because many editors still don't do it. Everything is repeated twice because too many don't want to read any of it. Doubling the occurrence doubles the chances it might actually get read.

Regards, LaraLove^T/_C 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

I'm the only contributor to 2004 Istanbul summit, which is listed as a GA candidate. Recently, I found some new interesting sources which could further improve the article. Am I allowed (as contributor) to put the article on HOLD until I added all relevant content to the article? If not, can I withdraw the nomination for a few weeks? Sijo Ripa 17:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with this. Homestarmy 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to do that, but you could just add the info in before it's reviewed, since the reviewer will look at the most recent version, not the version it was up to when you nominated it. If, however, it will take a long time to add all the data in, then you're probably better off removing it. G1ggy ^{Talk - Chalk} 00:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's possible a reviewer might get edgy about stability though if too much content is being added in, but after being on hold, that would make the history less unstable if the content was added days beforehand. Homestarmy 00:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Just link to this conversation on the talk page. Reviewers are generally experienced. jbolden1517^Talk 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cradle of Filth

This article has been nominated 3 times now and not one time have the editors (and I use the term loosely) addressed the concerns that have been raised in the past two reviews. Can someone tell these time wasters to stop abusing the GA process, fail their article given it's well below standard, and tell them to actually address the concerns already raised? There are enough articles that need reviewing, and by editors who work real hard, rather than these time wasters who have no respect for the process. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 19:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind everyone. They've now withdrawn their nomination. I'm going to try to show them the ropes as they say... LuciferMorgan 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

We also received an apology :-) Cardinal Wurzel 11:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah they did, and wonders never cease :). I still can't believe that the GAC process isn't giving inexperienced editors a taste of the ropes though... LuciferMorgan 12:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Octopus card

I've nominated Octopus card under the General transportation section. But I'm not sure if that's where it belongs. It's basically a form of E-money that started out used in transportation in Hong Kong, but has been extended to many non-transportation uses. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess general transportation should be the place, since the card is initially made as a universal ticket on many modes of transport.--Kylohk 19:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

I will be reviewing hopefully at least four articles a day over this week to help with the backlog, and I thought it would be best to organize some sort of drive to help coordinate efforts. I was thinking of leaving a form message to all WikiProject GA members (currently about 130) and Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers (if there are any differences between the two) asking them to review an article or two in the next two weeks to help remove the backlog. Does this sound reasonable to ask each member to do this? I'm sure it's unlikely that every single member will respond, and many are currently reviewing articles anyway, but it would help to drive more attention to eliminating the backlog. I could also leave a message at the Community Portal for the third time, even though I don't know how successful that has been so far. If there are no objections, then I'll start sending out the messages. I don't know how serious we would want to make this drive (possibly awarding barnstars or some other form of recognition for the amount of articles reviewed over the next few weeks). I think a reasonable goal would to help bring the backlog down to somewhere around 50 articles (compared to about 180 articles). Anyway, I'll wait for a few comments before I send the message out. --Nehrams2020 23:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I just joined the project and would be glad to help with the backlog. Awaiting the message. G1ggy! 00:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. I will picth in where I can, but I am in the midst of another "Drive" right now (USRD Article Improvement Drive) and also have 2 other articles in process. When those are finished, I intend to return to my old GA reviewing pace (3-4 a day). Good luck with this!--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll start sending out the messages now. I was thinking of also leaving a request at the new Award Center, to point out more attention to the new Good Article Medal of Merit. Maybe an award could be given to somebody who reviews five or more articles within the next two weeks? Does that seem too high or is it reasonable? I would leave the request up for two weeks or until the backlog is hopefully depleted. I won't put a request in until there are other comments here about any other parameters we want to follow. The message I am about to send out says:

"This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page." --Nehrams2020 23:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the messages have been sent out, so let's see how the drive goes. --Nehrams2020 01:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the GA medal awarded. Good motivation for me to do more. G1ggy! 02:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Template is wrong

The template at the top is incorrect. The five oldest unreviewed articles are Cher, David Lewis (politician), 2004 Istanbul summit, Widnes, and Randall Flagg, in that order. Leatherface is sixth by a few minutes. I looked at the template but I don't know how to change the list. Sheep81 22:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the list. In future, simply click "update list" to the right of the list items. Green451 23:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProjects helping to shift backlog?

Is there an obvious reason why some of the WikiProjects couldn't run their own GA review pages? As things stand...

"Anyone who shows understanding of the criteria and the instructions below can review an article, as long as you are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed."

So why not do a similar thing to Peer Reviews - list them both at the WikiProject and this central page. Hopefully the WikiProject members might get there quicker in some instances. Is it worth approaching some projects about it? - Alex valavanis 08:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe some projects already do this, though I'm unsure if the function has been properly advertised within the project. See WP:MANGA's GAC page, for instance. --tjstrf talk 08:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually thought this was a very good idea sometime ago, provided the "local" review systems would comply with GA standards (i.e. both make sure the "passed" article fulfills WIAGA, as well as that the reviewer maintains an impartial position), but seeing how some WikiProjects nominate rather poor-quality articles and seemingly reufse to accept WIAGA standards, I'd say we must remain cautious about it. I would also pay close attention to the recent passes, encourage by the drive - I guess many of them might have been made by occassional reviewers, who may or may not adhere to WIAGA... PrinceGloria 08:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suspect that project-based GA reviewers would interpret WIAGA based on how existing Good Articles within the project were written. While in theory this seems reasonable, since a GA should be in the same style as GAs on similar subject, it might have the side effect of some projects developing abysmal standards. --tjstrf talk 08:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

One problem with it is that WIAGA standards changed significantly over time, and, more importantly, their application has only recently become more or less consistent, so there are plenty of articles passed earlier that don't really conform with WIAGA, so one can always say "if this is a GA, why can't that one" etc. - which leads to another important issue, i.e. the need to re-review the current GA list (a sisyphian chore, I know, but we do need it). PrinceGloria 08:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of impartiality (and the appearance of impartiality), I believe it would be best if WikiProject members didn't review their own group articles, even if the reviewer hasn't touched the article under review. Those who work in projects are more likely to be familiar with the material, and may not notice sections which are unclear or need reworking for the benefit of someone not familiar with the subject. And there are WikiProjects whose articles are pretty terrible, and whose best articles would still not meet WIAGA standards. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

New template

Hello, I have created a new template - its {{PGAN}} (passed good article nomination); its similar to {{FGAN}} however the new one is used for good article nominations which have succeeded. I've added a note about it on the appropriate area on the GA page, feel free to improve or comment. Regards --The Sunshine Man 16:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been using Template:GAList for some time now, it never occurred to me it is only linked to in the "fail" section. I think it might be more useful because it helps remember and refer to all WIAGA sub-points, while I believe fitting your comments in a template format can become cumbersome... I don't feel that good about saying that given the work you have obviously put into creating the template, but then I believe it didn't take that much effort with FGAN already created... ;)

Anyway, I am now pondering whether it shouldn't be mandatory to list the WIAGA criteria and explicitly state you believe the article fulfills them (e.g. in the form of a template), so that the reviewers have to prove (or actively lie) they do understand and employ the WIAGA when reviewing. PrinceGloria 16:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Its fine, you have the right to your own opinions, I find the {{GAList}} more difficult personally, but its fine — you have the right to your own opinion. The Sunshine Man 16:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My point being - why not link GAList from both sections to give users a choice according to their personal preferences? That said, I believe that it is advisable to use either! PrinceGloria 16:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We could, do you mean add it onto the good articles page so it can be used? You didnt offend me in any way (per your edit summary when you said I dont mean to offend you), I think you have been really civil and polite about it. The Sunshine Man 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Well, I guess it was time to be bold and just do it rather than talk about it - now, just like in the Fail section, GAList is given as an option. I have also included a request for the reviewer to leave a "review", rather than "comment about reasons for passing", as the latter would indicate things like "I passed it because it's a good article", "I like it" etc. (not that rare, unfortunately) are OK. Feel free to revert/change it if you believe it was wrong. PrinceGloria 18:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine, looks good to me. Happy editing. The Sunshine Man 18:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Doubt regarding WP:GAC

suppose i pass an article, then would that article become a good article? i mean, does it depends upon one person only wether an article should be passed or failed. kindly reply on my user talkpage. i have nominated Himachal Pradesh for GAC. can anyone review it. i have rewritten the whole page and for past few days i am editing the page significantly.Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 10:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is both yes and no - yes, it takes just one person to review one article and either pass or fail it, as well as possibly delist a Good Article the person would find wanting. That said, it is expected that the person does follow the Good Article Criteria when assessing the article, and we have the Good Article Review process, involving multiple users per one article, in cases where there is doubt about the appropriateness of the review.

Just another remark - if you are still in the process of editing an article, please do not nominate it. GA Nominees are supposed to be complete articles, i.e. ones that the nominators expects will not require any significant edits in forseeable future. This also needs to be fulfilled in order for the article to clear the "stability" criterium (point 5). Please consider withdrawing your nomination and renominating the article once you are finished with editing. Do also read the Good Article Criteria carefully, making sure the article fulfills them before nominating.

I will post a copy of this reply on your talk page in a moment, I just wanted to leave it here too for other users to whom it might be of interest / assisstance. PrinceGloria 11:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Another solution to a situation similar to this I saw recently on one of these talk pages was that the person who was heavily editing their GA nominee put the article on hold while they were working on it, Sushant, if your article has been waiting around on the page for awhile, putting it on hold after you're done might be a good option, so that it won't look as unstable. Homestarmy 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling articles

I had to quick fail two more wrestling articles, Brian Adams (wrestler) and Nora Greenwald per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Wrestling editors should take note. Quadzilla99 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:GAC backlog elimination drive

There has been a lot of reviews being completed over the last week, so good job to everyone that has helped to review. I left a request at the Award Center that anyone who reviews five or more articles between May 23 and June 13, 2007 will receive a Good Article Medal of Merit. If you have reviewed five or more then please include your name at the bottom of User:Nehrams2020/GA reviews. I also included a side note at the Award Center saying that I may raise the number of required reviews in case there are a whole bunch of users who have reviewed five or more. Please reply here if you think that five articles is too high/too low. The backlog is going down, although we are continually getting new nominations as well (which is still good). Keep up the good work and let me know if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User error with Hold template

I've placed several articles on hold review recently, but I haven't been able to figure out how to enter the date into the GA Hold template to place on the talk pages. I'm afraid that any Wikipedia template that requires any programming skills to operate is usually beyond my skill level. The articles are: Bubbles the Clown, Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act 1919 and 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team. The dates I placed them on hold are included with my comments on the talk pages. CLA 06:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

All you do is put the date inside the template like this: {{GAonhold|(date goes here)}}, you just put a vertical line next to the template name, and then insert the date. (The vertical line key is above enter on many keyboards I think, even if it shows a hole in the middle). Homestarmy 17:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay that worked. Thank you, CLA 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Standing lists at Wikiprojects

To facilitate throughput to GA and FA, I'm trialling this; I've listed Standing Lists of large articles with substantial content which may be within striking distance of GA with varying amounts of work WRT formatting and copyediting. Some are already being worked on but I'm seeing if this increases collaboration. So far I've done this on WP mammals talk page and WP Birds collab pages. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Current quick-fail candidates

Out of curiosity, I generated a list of current GAC's that have {{fact}} templates. As I'm fairly new around the GA project, I'm hesitant to summarily quick-fail 10 articles. However, I'm curious to see what a more seasoned member would do with this list:

1. Arvanites
2. Colony Collapse Disorder
3. Erie, Pennsylvania
4. Natascha Kampusch
5. Nelson Mandela
6. Neon Genesis Evangelion
7. Puerto Rico
8. Sigma Chi
9. Sky News
10. University of Maryland, College Park

Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Make sure they're aware of them first - a copyeditor for Robert Benchley added one that I didn't notice, which was almost a quick fail if I wasn't aware of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

One or two fact tags is not a valid reason to quick fail an article. Quadzilla99 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

11 fact tags, a suspected OR tag, and a major lack of focus, on the other hand, are. --tjstrf talk 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

No duh, that's what I'm saying. But one fact tag is not a valid reason to quick fail an article. Although the example I just gave has other problems (WP:MSH, WP:LEAD, external jumps, etc.) it has exactly one fact tag and it's number one on his list up there. Quadzilla99 02:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless, the criterion here seems to be the existance of any fact tags, I shudder to return to the days when a mere fact tag, no matter what the fact involved was, and no matter how long the article was, and no matter if the rest of the article is very well-referenced, leads to articles instantly being failed. It got to the point where I didn't want to review any articles, since I saw many that i'd pass, but with some fact tag on something, I thought someone would destroy me if I passed it. Of course, now, I probably have enough experience to argue my case, but the point is, failing any article based on just a single fact tag, apparently irregardless of anything else, really doesn't seem like a good idea, indeed, many FA's get fact tags added here and there, yet do people immedietly take them to the FA review page to demand that they be delisted immedietly? This standard of delisting something for a single fact tag is much, much too high. However, I will look at some of these articles anyway to see if there's other problems. Homestarmy 02:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on these responses, should part 2.3 of How to review an article be changed? It currently says "The article has any cleanup tags, including but not limited to {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{fact}}, {{unreferenced}} etc." Cheers. Haus^Talk 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite what was already said, I think not. Personally, I think that any {{fact}} renders the article "non-good." Besides, it's not that hard to remove it. If anything, put it on hold with fact, but it definitely shouldn't pass with that template present. G1ggy! _{Review me!} 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The GA criteria do not explicitly spell out that "well-referenced" implies that there must not be any fact tags anywhere, I think a much stronger adjective than "well-referenced" would need to be used if that was true. Plus, I think its rather silly to look specifically for any fact tags and then speedily fail an article once one is found, because what happens if there aren't any, not because everything in the article is referenced, but because nobody has actually tagged OR parts of the article? It might encourage people to not pay enough attention to see if large chunks of the article aren't referenced, and then an article that has no fact tags but deserves many of them might get a more helpful review than articles that have just one fact tag for the only unreferenced, minor fact in the entire article. Homestarmy 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

On to my specific commentary on these articles, Aravantis seems like more of an On Hold candidate than a speedy fail candidate, I don't like how the bottom of the lead is worded, it sounds more like genocide than cultural assimilation. On Colony Collapse disorder, I don't see why the symptoms section needs to be a list, but the fact tag I saw doesn't seem to be on anything important, and besides that, the article appears extremely well-referenced, I don't see much problem there. The fact tag in Erie Pennsylvania is with a sentence that seems very OR and vauge, how is the existance of a few nature related things indicative of "very strong" Environmentalism? But I don't think the article should be failed just for that, if anything, the sentence doesn't seem useful, removing it might be best, though someone might get annoyed if they had POV reasons for putting it into the article. In the Natascha article, The unreferenced paragraph on the interview at the bottom, which appears to be the reason for the fact tag, doesn't seem to in and of itself make the article not well-referenced, overall, it seems fairly well covered by citations. The similar incidents section might make this an On Hold candidate though, that seems more appropriatly condensed into a See Also, but even then, with a title like "Similar incidents", I presume they have no direct relation to the topic. With Nelson Mandela, the fact tag in the lead shouldn't be necessary, if the article doesn't mention Mandela ever advocating violence, the sentence ought to go, and if it does, the fact tag should go. Neon Genesis Evangelion does seem to be pretty off, that section with all the fact tags doesn't look good, and that OR tag might have a valid explanation behind it, (that section doesn't appear unreferenced though) but I think giving a real review should be fine, the Characters section seems POV, and the lead with that harsh quote looks more like its starting an opinion piece, I think not passing this article normally would be best. Puerto Rico has many unreferenced sections, forget a single fact tag, many of the sections that try to use summary style are also summarizing poorly referenced articles. (The political parties one doesn't even seem to have a single reference at all) Sigma Chi seems to have unusual amounts of list type material, putting it on hold for an explanation might be safe, but all those poems and things at the bottom don't seem normal, and the unreferenced statement with a fact tag is just a number. Sky News seems to only have fact tags dealing with their coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial, I don't know if that's really an automatic GA breaker here. And finally, the Athletics section of that collage seems very POV, once again, a real review there would probably work better than just failing it instantly for some fact tag somewhere. I'm not really giving enough information for all of these articles to conduct full reviews on, but i'm just saying, the way I see it, none of these are articles that are terrible enough reference wise to just fail instantly for fact tags and nothing else. Homestarmy 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In a case where there literally are only 1 or 2 fact tags and the page is otherwise Good, the logical option would seem to me to be removing the uncited sentence(s), assuming they weren't anything important, and noting the removal in your review. --tjstrf talk 03:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

One or two fact tags can certainly warrant a hold status. I think a quick fail is a wee bit harsh. But 10 or 11? Forget about it, the nomination was obviously too soon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If they were for important facts, yes. If they were just something like integrated trivia (e.g. sales figures in Peru) where removal doesn't harm the article, then pulling them from the page and passing would make more sense than holding while they dug up references for a pair of ancillary points. They can always add them in cited later. On Neon Genesis Evangelion though, some of the fact tags look like they may have been erroneously placed. (I found at least one that was, can't tell on the others without the cited books.) The page has a much bigger problem with lack of focus than referencing though, containing at least another article's worth of content in the sections that were tagged for cleanup. I suggested they split it out and summarize it. --tjstrf talk 03:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of "quick failing" nominations. One reviewer is making the call regardless, and "quick failing" an article for one or two fact tags, or some other issue that can be handled in a matter of minutes, seems to trivialize the review process. I can easily see editors finding this offensive, especially when the "quick fail" provides no feedback on anything to correct. Gimmetrow 19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a quick-fail should be reserved (sparingly) for a general RTFM response. When it is clear that the nominator has not bothered to read WP:WIAGA, and point-by-point analysis is a waste of a reviewer's time (when it is better spent on other candidates) a quick fail is most appropriate. Unresolved {{cn}} tags are an indication that the editor has not thoroughly reviewed the article, however it is easy for a small number to be missed. Also keep in mind that as more eyes are attracted to the article, more {{cn}}s may creep in, which can lead to a hold. (All the better to earn the GA.) Similarly, articles that completely miss a specific criteria (such as {{current}}, violating stability) should be speedily failed, as long as the nominator is told why, so that it is not interpreted as an indictment of the editor's work. —Twigboy 22:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and was bold and changed the Quick Fail guideline to say that a single fact tag is not in fact enough for a quick fail. There seems to be near total consensus that this isn't a Quick fail, even if there isn't total agreement about whether an article can actually pass with them. Note also, that sometimes people say on Wikiprojects, "I've just put X up for GA" which can attract more eyes and have a {{fact}} tag added just in time for a reviewer to see the article. Personally, I agree with using QF only for obvious major breakings of WP:WIAGA--like speedy deletions. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Template

Whenever I use the {{GA}} it always present me a message {{ArticleHistory}}. Should we replace the newer template on the instructions in the project page?

If you would like to, that would be beneficial for the article. Also, the editors of the article may be capable of changing it themselves. --Nehrams2020 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

GA under review image

Currently, it appears that the magnifying glass icon image (Image:Searchtool.svg) that accompanied articles under review has been deleted. Would Image:Gnome-searchtool.svg be able to be used to replace it? --Nehrams2020 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been deleted. It's a technical glitch; follow link to Village Pump thread from image's description page... Ling.Nut 17:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry missed convention on edit name

I've just noticed that I was meant to use Nominate Troilus as the subject when I nominated it. I'm sorry I didn't notice this. I had paged down to how to nominate an article

Should I put in a dummy nominate edit for the article? Or will that not help?

Can I also suggest for consideration whether the recommended title for the edit should be included in how to nominate? --Peter cohen 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, its just edit summaries are desirable because its harder to fix mistakes and such when people don't use them. Homestarmy 21:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I did put the name of the article in the summary. It's just not in blue. --Peter cohen 21:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Passing an article not on GAC

Let's say I find an article that I have not edited at all, yet believes passes all the criterion for a good article quite easily. Would I be allowed to make it a good article myself without sending it here, should I submit it here for someone else anyway, or should i promote it and send it to GAR for second opinions?--Wizardman 00:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My 2c: You submit at WP:GAC, as always. Then you become the 'contributor;' the article's representative during the review process. Someone else then becomes reviewer, who limits him or her self to measuring how the article compares to a standard. Two distinct roleplayers; clean separation of concerns. If the article becomes GA, it's because two editors with complementary points of view concurred: the reviewer and the contributor. If the article is close-but-not-quite GA, the contributor, as the article's advocate, can redress the deficiencies the reviewer uncovered. Where one person attempts to fulfill both roles (your first case) there is no clear separation of concerns; there are not two editors independently concurring on an article's quality. If there is any value at all in the GA process, it is that one person, in nominating, thinks an article is GA, and if a reviewer independently agrees, then one is on firmer ground in regarding the article as GA quality. Insofar as sending it to review: that should be reserved for process oversight: lack of concurrence among contributors and reviewers, as is the case now. Gosgood 01:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Gosgood. But if you don't want to nominate (because you want to review it), you can leave a note on its talk page, suggesting they send it to GAC, and noting that you will review it as soon as it's nominated. You can not simply pass it without it being listed here. - G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 01:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, figured I checked. That's what I did with the last 2 I randomly found, I just figured I'd ask about it.--Wizardman 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

An article I nominated for GA has been failed [3] for three reasons - the third reason given was "no images", and that's one I can't fix. I have addressed the other two reasons given. Am I right in is there in fact no GA requirement for an article to have an image? One other editor agrees with my understanding, anyway: [4]. If the view is that articles need images, then please let me know and I'll withdraw my request to the reviewer for a second look. Thanks, Bencherlite 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been noticing several reviews as of late where a reviewer mistakenly fails an article for having no images, even when the GA criteria explicitly states that a lack of images doesn't disqualify an article from GA status, its come up on GA/R several times already, however, if the other two concerns were valid, wern't very minor, and you fixed them after the decision, I think it would be better to re-nominate. The backlog is pretty long right now though, so while your article waits, a Peer Review in the meantime would probably be a good idea. Homestarmy 17:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The other reasons given were that the lead was too short (not too difficult to fix) and one sentence lacked NPOV (though as this sentence was based on comments made about the piece of music in the source, it was easily fixed.) I've seen "on hold" given for more challenging problems in the past, and so will let the failing reviewer decide whether he wants to look again or whether renomination is required. Thanks for your comments. Bencherlite 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How bold can you be when assessing an article?

I've been reviewing theobromine where the problems I saw were largely to do with language, particularly jargon. I therefore decided to be bold (as suggested on the project page here) and help get rid of the jargon myself. The nominator now thinks I might have played too much of a role in the development to pass it. Could I have an opinion on this, please? The discussion on the assessment has been spread between the article talk page, user:messedrocker's talk page and my own. --Peter cohen 08:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with what you did. Many reviewers play a role in the development of GA articles. I can't see much of a difference between fixing the article yourself and requesting the same fixes on the talk page; they both lead to the same outcome. Epbr123 10:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Epbr. When I do review a GA nom, I normally leave detailed comments for improvements rather than implement them myself, as a "courtesy" to the nominator. It's so much easier to just make the changes yourself and be done with it that I have been tempted to do that several times. I don't think you can be faulted, Peter, for doing that. It's always a good idea in my opinion, though, to explain why you made the changes you did, for the nominator's benefit. Green451 16:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of Jargon doesn't sound like major contribution to me, if the nominator really has concern about it, he can start a GA/R if he likes, but I for one just don't see a real problem here. Homestarmy 16:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've now passed the article. I think the nominator just wanted to make sure everything was above board. --Peter cohen 19:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Length of GA article

When i reviewed the article, What Kind of Day Has It Been, i found that the entire article was probably no more than 4/5 paras. well written to a large extent. can it be given a GA? Is there any length requirements for GA articles? Please let me know. --Kalyan 18:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no minimum, except that if an article should really be merged with a parent article, one might ask the editors involved if they think that's a good thing to do. I don't think even that should prevent a GA, though; no reason you can't award a GA and then put a merge tag on -- the merge might not get consensus, after all. Mike Christie (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The plot section seems to have questionable NPOV status in my opinion, might want to look at it more closely. Homestarmy 19:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cryonics

OK, I was getting ready to add an on hold to this article and found it has been on hold since mid May. Can I go ahead and just fail it? Aboutmovies 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• You can, or you could add your own review to the talk page. Epbr123 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

The backlog drive will go for two more days to be completed at the end of the 13th (Pacific Time or UTC-8). If you have reviewed five or more articles between May 23 and the end of tomorrow, please include your name at with the list of your reviews (there are currently 12 users who have done so). I will be awarding the Good Article of Merit to everyone listed there. Good job to everyone that helped, we were able to bring the backlog down from around 180 to about 105 current candidates. Once the drive has been completed, feel free to keep reviewing, and I thank all of those who have been reviewing before the drive even started. Hopefully we can keep bringing it down, and if it explodes again, maybe a better organized drive can be started. --Nehrams2020 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please revew Hippolyte de Bouchard --Argentini an 00:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears to of been reviewed on the 28th of May already....? Homestarmy 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I did nto know I had to delete the old template when renominating. Maybe that is why nobody reviewed it. --Argentini an 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, you don't, but you are supposed to have the nominee template on it, did you list it on the GAC page? Homestarmy 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did --Argentini an 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The drive is now over, and I will be awarding the medals later today. Good job to everybody that helped to contribute, a large chunk of the backlog was removed thanks to everybody that pitched in. Keep up the good work! --Nehrams2020 08:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

GAReview = second opinion?

What about these changes: [5] and [6]. Does this change have consensus? Does appear a little contradictory, because this makes things rather rigid or confusing than easy for reviewers.. I mean, we have the GA-review if a GA nominator feels misjudged — and if the GA reviewer needs a second opinion to pass or fail the article, he/she can simply add a note manually to the GA candidates list.. so why add it to the template? --Johnnyw talk 01:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll reverse it for now, it just seems too confusing:

Paste #:{{GAReview}} ~~~~ below the entry to avoid multiple reviews on the same article or to get a second opinion on the article.

Don't hesitate to revert me again if I am mistaken.. maybe a clarification in the instructions are necessary to avoid this in the future? --Johnnyw talk 01:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That might be User:Tarret, I can't be sure if he/she is that IP, but this IP edits like every page Tarret edits, even though the IP won't respond to inquiries. However, the second change does seem odd because not many people who use that template probably want someone to interrupt, i'm pretty sure it was created specifically so other people wouldn't get in the way of people who are in the middle of reviewing an article. Homestarmy 01:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, if I sometimes forget to login but yes thats me. Also I do believe that the template was created to prevent multiple reviews, but I think that that template make the backlog longer instead of shorter. Tarret 17:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a time limit on how long articles can be under review. Epbr123 18:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a report section at Wikipedia:Good article candidates/Report#Old reviews that lists old reviews. Mike Christie (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Stability"

Looking at Motorcycle's history, I notice that in March there was a bit of an edit war - how far back in time constitutes "recent" for stability assessment? Can someone also confirm for me that the constant vandalism is not a stability issue that could cause a GA fail? Thanks! --Fritzpoll 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Around March 2007 there were some issues regarding the use of which English, i.e., British English 'v' US English 'v' South African English, anyway it is long over. There was also one editor who got upset about the use of his images and that too is now in the past because that user has retired from Wikipedia. Besides occasional vandalism and some small improvements in the last month or so the article is now pretty stable with few real interruptions. Hope that helps. Cheers ww2censor 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

From WP:WIAGA (w/appropriate markup):

"It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply."

The criteria page lays everything out clearly. — Deckiller 00:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(Slaps himself on forehead) Of course - excellent - thanks for that. --Fritzpoll 00:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. The criteria probably need to be better advertised. — Deckiller 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Another GAC backlog elimination drive?

Consider that the list is growing rapidly again (at about 3 per day) would anyone agree with me that we need to have another drive? Tarret 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that at soon as it ended, the reviews nearly stopped. I don't know how we would advertise the drive well enough for more people to assist in helping with the reviews this time. Something does need to be done though. --Nehrams2020 05:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up on IRC. It seems the consensus (of the 5 people who were paying attention) was that GAC is always going to be backlogged. Responses such as "you added a GAC today? See you in a month" paint a picture of the perspective in relation to this backlog. And, as Nehrams said, it's true, reviews stop when any effort to remove the backlog ends. The best think you can do (Tarret) is to just keep reviewing articles =D G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Images reminder

Just a reminder to check for image tags and valid fair use rationales when passing GAs. A couple of months ago I had a look at some Computer-related GAs and almost all had violating images that could be deleted if not fixed. This is important as GAs set examples of what articles should look like, even if they are not brilliant enough to be FAs, so this should not be ignored.--Konstable 05:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I recently left messages on all of the university articles asking for FURs as many of the logos/seals did not have them. It is an important requirement and I'll keep checking older passed GAs to make sure they have them. --Nehrams2020 04:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Backlog

To keep the backlog down, would it be possible to create a page which listed users by number of reviews done? Epbr123 10:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

How will this keep the backlog down? Reviewing Good Articles isn't meant to be a competition of who reviews the most articles, which this idea sounds like, as it will result in people rushing reviews just to get their "number of reviews" up. M3tal H3ad 13:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a possibility but the same applies to giving barnstars for five or more reviews. Epbr123 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to give the GA medal of merit to anyone you see with several reviews, you don't need to make a list to tell you that. Especially since some people are shy about it. G1ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 05:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

But the medal can only be given once. A list would create an ongoing incentive. Epbr123 12:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You could create a log for GA reviews and give a medal for the wikipedian with the most reviews in a month. That could create an incentive for people to make reviews. Of course, it would actuallt be needed to have someone checking the reviews to ensure they meet minimum standards. --Victor12 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

With the last drive, I checked the majority of the reviews of the people who partipated, and there were a few things that were overlooked, such as fair use rationales and some cite issues, but altogether some new reviewers did very well. I think that I threw the drive together too soon and didn't get enough people to know about it. Perhaps if we started announcing this sooner before the next drive started, then we would be able to get more involvement. --Nehrams2020 04:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is what happens when the drive is over. The backlog has nearly returned to what it was before the last drive. 1, 2. Epbr123 09:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that perhaps there should be more encouragement for people who submit articles for review to do some reviewing themselves. When I made Troilus a candidate, I kept an eye on the list of candidates and eventually reviewed theobromine as relatd to an area where I had some knowledge. I think a mixture of nurturing a culture of mutual obligation and promoting the idea that if you help keep a steady turnover going then your pwn candidate is likely to get processed more quickly might help. --Peter cohen 10:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I began reviewing articles in order to get my noms reviewed faster. Although, I think a lot of editors who nominate articles for GA, don't feel they are qualified to review other articles. And a lot of them probably aren't qualified, judging by the number of GA noms that fail. I had to recieve feedback from my own noms before I felt I knew enough to review others. Carrying out a GA review is more complex than merely checking against the GA criteria - there are many pages of guidelines to be read and memorised. Epbr123 15:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What gets me are the numbers of quick fails. If there was some way of making people explain why their articles met the criteria before they nominated... It's not always easy to spot your own typos, but you should be able to notice clean-up tags and check the status of the pictures. And you should know if you're in the middle of an edit-war.--Peter cohen 12:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

From next week, I've decided to try out awarding a GA Medal of Merit each week to the best reviewer based on the number of reviews performed and the depth of each review. I'll announce the winner on this page each week so that reviewers are aware of there is an award to be won. I've come up with a points system where reviewers are awarded between 1 and 3 points for each review, with 1 point for a quick fail/pass etc. The top five reviewers for the week ending Saturday 23th June were 1. Vimalkalyan 2. Teemu08 3. Nehrams2020 4. Alientraveller 5. G1ggy. Epbr123 17:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea. It might also be worth tracking people who do reviews over an extended period and not just on a weekly basis, or at least getting those such as might be interested in a barnstar to record their contributions somewhere.

Intraproject reviewing

Recently, there's been some debate on and off-wiki about editors from a project reviewing articles related to said project. Some believe that it is forbidden while others state that no such restriction exists. Which party is correct? AFAIK, the only restriction is that editors cannot review articles that they themselves have significantly worked on. For what it's worth, I do not perform reviews, so I am a neutral party in this issue. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The review guidelines frowns on reviewers taking on articles from projects they work on, but does not forbid it. I'm not familiar with any other guideline that comments on this possible conflict of interest. — Gosgood 13:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a conflict of interest that is best avoided. If they really want their article reviewed, they should review other GANs in order to clear the backlog. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Promoting an article to be reviewed is a clear COI, i.e. posting on one's talk page so that they can get a review. TMF got it right on the initial post—the only restriction is that editors cannot review articles that they themselves have significantly worked on. It is also more putting the MOS, RS, V, and those other guidelines/policies into play. (→zelzany - fish) 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless we start seeing a bunch of specific instances in which conflict of interest from wikiproject members results in shoddy reviews, I don't think there's much need to change anything at the moment, the only restriction that's really ever seemed important is to say that signifigant contributors may not review things. Homestarmy 16:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Honestly, there should be no shame in having a member of a wikiproject promoting articles within that project, especially since the criteria are very clear and uncontroversial. — Deckiller 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I would actually be in favor of encouraging using the wikiprojects to review articles in their own fields -- I think it's important for people to have some knowledge about the subject they are reviewing, so they can see if any major sources have been overlooked, if relevant MoS/disciplinary conventions are being followed, if "broad scope" is being followed etc.
  • It might even help to break up the GAC list into different subpages which can be watched separately (like deletion sorting). If there were a separate "classical music" subpage, I would watch that for contributions to review. As it is, WP:GAC has too many changes to make the watchlist changes relevant. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk)

Topic listing

In the "PASS" instructions, it says to list the topic but it doesn't tell you what the available topics are or where to find them. We need to know this. Rlevse 11:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never used it before, it looks like a parser function thing that should be detailed at Template:GA, but it isn't :/. Homestarmy 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The topics are listed on the Wikipedia:Good article page. Epbr123 19:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If you go there, you have to click on all the "show" buttons to see them all, very tedious. What we need is an easily accessible pure listing. I'm not going to use this until it's easier to access.Rlevse 12:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see what the problem is. If you had to pass an article on William Shakespeare, for example, its obvious he belongs in the Literature category; then after clicking on "show" its obvious he belongs in the Writers category. The shows probably make it easier to find the right category. Epbr123 12:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How to reduce GA review load a little: another quick fail criteria?

Hi folks,

since I have become more and more involved with GA reviews I got a little frustrated over some things, that probably could be avoided. There are some articles (often self nominated) for GA that are clearly lacking broadness/depth. Specifically, most articles I reviewed/have worked on relate to music. I still gave the article an in-depth review, mostly focusing on the lack of content, etc., and have at times not even received a response to the review. (I know, most authors are very grateful and kind people.) The article just remains as-is, far from GA status. I know that I can't generalize this phenomenon, but sadly, I do think this mainly relates to semi-experienced users, who contribute, but are not yet familiar with the processes like GA/peer review. Some possible proposals to tackle this issue:
Add a quick fail criteria regarding obvious lack-of-content and..

• ..give examples

cite several examples to give the nominator a better perspective before resubmitting, avoiding a in-depth review

• redirect nominator to peer review

drawback: problem is not solved, but merely shifted. same problem occurs at peer review: common sense (i.E. looking at other GA examples) would prevent an experienced author to "waste" their time on this

• create a template with advice on the next steps to be placed at the article's talk page which includes

• a mini summary and link to Wikipedia:Article development#How to develop an Article or Wikipedia:The perfect article
• a mini summary and link to the GA criteria
• GA article examples (of the same category, to be edited by GA reviewer)
• general comments (to be edited by GA reviewer)

Hope you agree that addressing this issue could help lower the load of the GA process a bit? Any comments regarding this? Of course I would offer to do the necessary adaptations/creation of the template/whatever is necessary. Best wishes, Johnnyw talk 17:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need a better pipeline for articles. We seem to have a situation where more nominations are coming in than we have motivated reviewers, which results in a several week backlog. And this problem is going to continue to increase as Wikipedia grows. Nominations that come in seem to fall into three categories: (1) Those articles that are a quick and easy "yes"; (2) Those articles that are a quick "no"; and (3) those that just need a tiny bit more work to get to GA status. I don't think that GA reviewers should spend much time on the second category -- just start a Peer Review on the article, remove it from the GA page, and move on to the next article on the list. --Elonka 15:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So you'd propose to redirect the user to peer review? We should check back with that project to see if that'd be a problem load-wise. If not, we could establish it as a standard procedure. Do you think it would be appropriate to adapt the instructions on how to GA-review an article a bit? It currently encourages to either quick-fail the article mostly because of formal criteria or start an in-depth review.. --Johnnyw talk 11:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Peer Review has an eternally long backlog, and if we start sending them articles which are well below GA standards, I doubt they'll get many real reviewers. Homestarmy 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So the only available path seems to encourage reviewers to quick fail articles that are a clear miss and focus on articles that fell short. Still, we would need a good way to give submitters of quick fail articles a hint on what to do. It would probably suffice to reiterate the GA-criteria, then add two or three examples picked by the reviewer and a short comment in what field the GA-candidate lacks the most, don't you think? I'd propose to adapt the GA review instructions (the quick guide "How to review an article" and the stand-alone article) accordingly. Maybe a little template would help as well?
In all, I see the need for a better focus on close candidates, better QA regarding GA-passes by "experienced" reviewers which both make it necessary to save time normally spent on rather "fruitless " in-depth reviews. Johnnyw talk 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have only done 4 GA reviews, but I failed all of them (3 by quick fail). None of them seemed to have read (or maybe comprehend is the better word) what GA means. Part of this comes through when people are nominating the article and they add comments about the article. I think it might be a good idea to look into having an automated bot that posts a message on each submitter's talk page after they submit an article. Add it would start out as this: Many articles on Wikipedia are good quality and interesting, but many of these are not Good Articles in that they do not meet the high standards of GA. Please re-read the GA criteria and ensure that the article you submitted meets these criteria or it will be quickly failed.

Or something allong those lines. This way the poor quality articles get an early warning of their impending failure. I would even include a link to a GA quality article just as the assessment scale does. And lastly maybe add a copyedit criteria to the quick fail where if it appears that nobody copyedited the article to ensure simple grammer mistakes, spelling mistakes, and puncutation mistakes have been eliminated or reduced to only a few instances (i.e. more five/ten copyedit mistakes results in quick fail). This would not include just bad prose or akward word choices. Aboutmovies 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an issue of the strictness of a straight count on the copy edit varies with the size of an article. Also a small number of slapdash changes by a third party could cause a basically good article to hit a limit. Finally someone with dyslexia might contribute a decent article with few no one else contributing. A reviewer should maybe correct the errors rather than fail the article. --Peter cohen 19:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with reviewers fixing things unless it is one or two minor things that allow it to pass. Otherwise we might as well as have reviewers be responsible for bringing every article up to GA standard. If someone with dyslexia has contributed a decent article, well that's not GA. This isn't, hey good job, this is GA, which is most of the way to FA. The main difference that I see between the two is depth of the article. Otherwise the quality is about the same. Articles riddled with spelling mistakes, puncuation mistakes, and the like fail the MOS and should not be GA. They are B. It's up to the editors involved with an article to fix the problems, not reviewers. And if someone doesn't take the ten minutes to do a good copy edit, then it should fail if it has a lot of little mistakes. I do agree that it could be a sliding scale so that long articles are allowed more, but still standards are standards. We don't allow an article to pass FA just because Forest Gump wrote it. Aboutmovies 20:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Automated review

Would it be a good idea to suggest (or even force) GAC nominators to run an automated peer review before nominating an article? That way they can make corrections themselves or abstain from nominating. This might help reduce the volume of nominations as well as the current backlog. --Victor12 15:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've found that a great amount of Peer Review suggestions have nothing to do with the GA criteria, simply because it can get increadibly technical, its always seemed to me that PR was meant to prepare an article to either become an FA, or become as good as technically possible. Homestarmy 19:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Even so, I think several features of this script are quite useful for GA nominations. For example, it points out whether an article is overlinked, underlinked, needs a rearrangement of sections, needs to unify the English used (British or American), needs to link dates, needs to unlink years or months, among other stuff. Perhaps a new version could be devised which specifically caters to the needs of GAC by deleting all unuseful features. --Victor12 21:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But none of those things are in the GA criteria except maybe re-arranging sections. Homestarmy 16:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, these may be worth mentioning during a review, but I don't see even putting an article on hold for these, except perhaps inconsistent spelling if it is so frequent as to be distracting to the prose. Gimmetrow 16:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Separate pages for categories?

Just a thought here. Could the nominations for each general category (Arts, Everyday Life, etc.) be on separate pages, linked to the main page? We all know there're a LOT of candidates, and this would make the page load faster. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Good idea -- I just separately suggested this above (under Wikiprojects) with Deletion sorting as a model. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Add to Caution Tag

I think part of the problem with this page is people are not updating it properly. Many people review the articles, but do not give any indication on this page that they have. Should we also include in the caution tag that reviewers need to indicate that they have reviewed the article? Z1720 05:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Improving the GA process

Mentoring and QA

Does this project have any mechanism to allow experienced GA reviewers to mentor editors who would like to get more involved? It might help those of us who are keen to contribute, but lack experience and knowledge of the criteria (I know they are listed, but...). I suspect that having the backup and advice of someone who knows what they are doing might encourage other editors to chip in - even if only to eg confirm suggestions before sticking them on the nominated article's talk page. Related to this, I've seen a few comments whilst wikisurfing along the lines of "How did this ever get to be a GA?" - is there a QA process for checking GA passes? Cheers! EyeSerene^TALK 20:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There is the option to request a review of a Good Articles. Still, to have some people dedicate them at reviewing GA passes could be useful imho. Maybe a division of task could be appropriate? For example, some special roles like "GA QA" and "GA mentor"? --Johnnyw talk 15:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This is perhaps linked to Balloonman's comment below - it seems peculiar (although no doubt very Wikipedish?) that currently anyone can promote an article to GA without any oversight. True, incorrectly promoted articles can be (and are) taken to GAR, but this increases the workload of a project that already has a significant backlog. Whilst maybe adding to this workload initially, bringing extra rigour to the GA process from the outset would I think not only improve faith in the GA tag, but also pay off long-term in a larger pool of trusted GA reviewers and hopefully reduced nominations at GAR. EyeSerene^TALK 08:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty and put both threads under one header - both attempt to improve GA quality by suggesting a two-person review per candidate. Let's continue the discussion below. --Johnnyw talk 10:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A different view

Ok, I'm going to provide a different view on how to reduce the GA overflow... in fact, this view is counter intuitive. Right now, I have little to no respect for the GA process. All it takes is one person to approve an article to pass/fail it. This means that a lot of junk gets passed and occassionally good articles get failed. Being a GA is meaningless---this may sound surprising because I am an active voice in the GA/R process. I would love to see GA's go through a more rigorous examination---not quite the same intensity as an FA, but more than one person's opinion. For example, make it take 2 or more people to pass or fail an article. If 2 people agree that it meets/doesn't meet GA standards it is passed/failed. Why do I think this will improve the situation? Because it would help bring credibility to the process---and people might start paying attention to it.Balloonman 15:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to improve confidence in the assessment, however it would probably only increase the backlog, due to more people. GB 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it sounds like a good idea, but I agree with GB about it increasing backlog. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

EyeSerene's comment above points in the same direction - and I as well agree that some kind of procedure change would be appropriate. Currently, I see two goals that we need to achieve (I hope you agree):

1) improve quality of GA passes

2) reduce backlog

Since we cannot count on other projects chipping in due to similar problems (Peer review, etc.), it seems quite obvious to me that we need to engage the problems within our own project:

I'd propose to implement a one-step fail, two-step pass procedure.

One-step fail:

• same procedure as before, but adapted by encouraging reviewers to boldly quick fail an article on the current quick fail criteria + broadness with a short, yet precise comment, and giving a couple of examples what a GA article in that subject should look like.

Two-step pass:

• after anyone reviewed the article and decided to pass the article, the article then is quick-reviewed (and hopefully promoted) by a member of the GA review team to

• prevent "bad" articles from passing
• but also to mentor and encourage the first reviewer if she/he is clearly unfamiliar with the criteria

These measures would obviously reduce the load of the GA-review process, or rather shift some of the load to the second stage review, but increase the load on the GA-nomination reviews. But this could be compensated because it increases the number of quick failing articles. In all, it would obviously increase the quality of GA passes. And in the long run, we could get more dedicated and better reviewers because of the mentoring. I am keen to hear your opinions ;-) Johnnyw talk 10:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I wonder what would then be the difference with FA? The standards for FA and GA aren't actually very far apart (in theory), relating mainly to the quality (or brilliance!) of the writing, the comprehensiveness of the article and I think FA actually requires images, where GA does not. GA was meant to be less bureaucratic, although interestingly the numbers of FAs and GAs are about the same, where GAs should probably be about 10x as common as FA, given the length of the process. Anyway, these are quite sensible suggestions, but to lower the workload reviewers would also need to get tougher on quick failing articles, rather than leaving them on hold (I'm extremely guilty of this myself, by the way). 4u1e 10:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between GA/FA articles. I'm a regular GA/R reviewer and we routinely will keep an article as a GA with a note saying that it isn't close to FA status. A two step process would not be anywhere near the level of complexity as an FA article... FA's are reviewed by as many as ten or more people before being passed---some of whom are real pros who can find areas of improvement with every article. To pass an FA, the article has been thouroughly reviewed. The GA process, even if enhanced, would not come close to that. I do like Johnny's idea of a primary reviewer and a secondary one doing just a quick review to try to maintain consistency. I think this would help lend credibility to GAs. Right now people respect FA and even A quality articles, but ask the FAC reviewers what they think about GA articles and they will laugh. Personally, I like the GA/A level---FA is too cut throat and expects publishable quality articles which I am not willing to do on a hobby. The GA/A level is of more interest.Balloonman 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I expect that you're right, although I have watched FA articles go through with fairly minimal attention. I just mean that when I do a review, the differences between FA and GA criteria are not that great, and are mainly to do with quality of writing and 'style'. I don't see reviewing an article for GA as much easier than reviewing one for FA; it's a little quicker because you don't have to get really in depth on writing style. But then I'm a fairly harsh reviewer, I've only ever passed one article....:D If my view on that is correct then the difference in work needed to pass a GA has to come from a smaller number of people being involved than for FA. 4u1e 17:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In a way, if there were more reviewers available, more than one person could already decide whether an article should be passed for failed, by checking up on the 1.0 bot log of all changes in status. I often check it whenever it updates, and more than once i've spotted something suspicious and countered someone's actions. Homestarmy 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I look at the FA as the PhD Dissertation. Everything has to be perfect. No POV, no questionable citations, no poor writing, everything is right. It includes a defense before the PhD/FA panel. The A Class review is the Master's Thesis. POV/citations/writing etc need to be getting to FA quality, but the standards a little lower (a Master's Thesis that earns an A might only earn a B if it was presented at the PhD level. The GA article is college level work. An A level of college work might only earn a B at the Master's level... and a D if presented as a PhD. It isn't uncommon for an article to be written overnight and immediately pass a GA review... but it would be hardpressed to write an FA quality article overnight.Balloonman 17:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but at the risk of being argumentative (Sorry!), what we're concerned with here is how long it takes to review an article, not how long it takes to write it. Hence my interest in the assessment criteria, which is what I work through when I review an article. (edit: An FA article is slower to review, but not all that much slower.)(And I wish I could write a GA class article overnight!) 4u1e 18:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Include a request to people to review other people's work

Another option is to ask people who post to review one or two articles themselves... while not a requirement, we can dangle the bait that people who review another persons article are more likely to have somebody review their own. (With the caveat, that we can't have cross reviews. "I'll review yours, if you review mine.") I would not make this into an absolute rule, but a request.Balloonman 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good plan, if people actually did this it would kill the backlog at a stroke. I suspect most will still not do it, but they should be given every encouragement. 4u1e 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For every review that I pass, I include a message requesting that the authors of the article consider reviewing an article or two to help with the backlog. I don't leave it on the ones I fail, since the editors might be busy working to improve the article to nominate again. It would be great though if all reviewers began to leave these messages. Every new editor we get that stays to review helps to keep the backlog down and replace the people that head on to other projects. --Nehrams2020 17:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that most people don't do it because they never think about it or they don't think is something they are qualified to do... I remember when I did my first review, I was uncomfortable because I wasn't sure if I was diong it right.Balloonman 17:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This might be support for Eye's notion of a mentoring program... have a list of reviewers who have been doing this for a while who can be called upon to provide a second opinion and share with the newby why they agree/disagree with the newbies ideas.Balloonman 19:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I just thought of an idea that would play right into these suggestions. Create a list of experienced reviewers who are willing to expidite a review for others if those people make two good faith reviews as deemed by the experienced reviewer. In other words, I post an article on "John Smith." It sits there for a week... but nobody has reviewed it yet. I look at the list and contact Nehrams2020 and ask him to review my article for me. Nehrams says, "Sure, but have you reviewed two other articles? If so, which two? Can I see your comments?" Nehrams then serves as that second level of check on the less experienced reviewer ensuring that the consistency is there. The backlog is tackled by people wanting to get their own articles reviewed. We have somebody experienced making sure that they record the pass/fail correctly. If they aren't going to do a good faith review on somebody else's article, we don't have to spend much time on their articles! We encourage good reviews by pointing out that they will get back what they put into the process! The other caveat that I would add is that when people do this, that we make it a soft rule that they can't go back to the same secondary reviewer every time. E.g. I used Nehrams my first time to nominate an article, the next time I should ask somebody else. That way, I get feed back from more than one perspective. This would be voluntary, but it would address those people who complain that it takes too long.Balloonman 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason I brought up mentoring/oversight/checking/QA was: I have been copyediting as part of the LoCE, recently got an article to GA (my first!), and was contemplating getting more involved in the GA review process. I've had an article I wrote waiting in the GA queue for a while, and was casting about for something I could review as part of the tit-for-tat process. However, the recent discussion over at Holocaust denial GAR has convinced me that I'm not ready to jump in as a GA reviewer just yet, without more experience and/or someone who can, at least at first, check any reviews I undertake (for those that have been following that debate, my initial opinion was "keep", but on reading the criteria properly I believe it should have been "delist"... however with the recent improvements I think I'm back to "keep"...). To Balloonman's comment above I would add that not all editors who might nominate an article for GA will wish to review other articles, and should not feel that they are being coerced into reviewing just so their nomination is treated seriously - especially where they feel they have no aptitude or desire for doing so. EyeSerene^TALK 09:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

EyeSerene, the vast majority of GAC's a person could normally review if they just went down the list and found stuff they liked would never come even close to as complicated as the Holocaust Denial GA/R. Sometimes they can get more involved than you might like, such as when somebody protests a fail, (It's happened to me several times) but even then, it never gets anywhere near as complicated as Holocaust Denial is right now. Personally, I never review articles that I don't feel comfortable in making a decision on, and while I don't review articles as often as other people, there are more than enough GAC's up there that have easy decisions, (Sadly, many of them might be delist, but there are often some that easily meet criteria) and from what i've seen in the past, people rarely go wrong even if they do just start reviewing right after reading the criteria. Homestarmy 19:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Snide comment alert right after reading the criteria therein lies the problem... a lot of people don't read the criteria ;-) end snide comment alert But I will agree with Eye, I think the process would be a lot less intimidating if we had people available to just double check newbies work... I know when I was actively doing GAC's I was always concerned that I might be doing something wrong. In fact, I took one of my first GAC's to the talk page because I didn't know if I had done it right. So how about this proposal, add a place where a person can REQUEST oversight? E.g. "I just passed article XYZ could somebody check it to make sure I did it correctly?" (That's basically what I did on one of my first GA's.) But make it less intimidating and available so that people can do so repeatedly without feeling stupid. I did it once, I wasn't about to go back a second time.Balloonman 19:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So you'd like to see, for example, the inclusion of a template "requestoversight" similar to "on hold" to ask an experienced reviewer to have the final word on a review? While I agree that such a thing could cater to some proportion of the people new to the GA process, it wouldn't reduce the load or probably wouldn't prevent bad articles from passing (since people who are sensible enough to want to ask for a second opinion are probably handling a very close call, and won't normally be totally wrong, whatever they decide to do.) I'd say, we'd still need make some changes like I proposed at "a different view" that lead to a little less articles to be put "on hold" and a little more editorial oversight.. (which would probably mean more quick-fails (not without giving some advice, of course), a "forced" second opinion (aimed at lessening the burden on newbies), which would render the request for oversight useless. ).. Or how do you propose we could address the issue of quality and backlog while adding the request for a second opinion as an optional feature to the process? Johnnyw talk 23:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's a guinea pig. I submitted Snake scales. My reviewer passed it after due process but also asked me to review a couple of articles. I find that there is no biology article available and I'm intimidated by the thought of venturing into another area of interest because of lack of domain knowledge. So what next. Do i go ahead where angels fear to tread? Where do I find moral support? That's what first time reviewers need.AshLin 14:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have chosen Deep Impact (space mission) for GA review. May I request an experienced reviewer to please volunteer to carry out a quickfail review of my comments. On hearing from him I'll give him a link to my comments before posting them. Thanks in advance, AshLin 17:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I would concur with the idea of a list of experienced GA reviewers that have confirmed they can be approached to give a second opinion on newbie reviews. Personally I'd feel more confident in not only the entire process but also jumping in with reviews of my own if newbies like myself could just drop a note asking for a quality check - either here as Ashlin has done above or possibly on a user talk page. More work for some I know, but an increase in quality and hopefully a larger pool of decent reviewers would be worth it. I'm aware (reading various GA reviews including my own recently failed article nom) that standards are not consistently applied, but if newbies were able to pick a different oversight editor every time, we'd get a good cross-section of current practice. Maybe it would help to even out application of the GA criteria too. EyeSerene^TALK 10:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Reviewer of the Week - w/e 30/6/2007

Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Nehrams2020 as the GA Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 30th June 2007. Nehrams2020 is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were 1. Nehrams2020 2. Vimalkalyan 3. Serpent's Choice 4. David Fuchs 5. Ruslik0. Epbr123 10:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering what the stats looked like? Some positive motivation to do a zillion review this week. --Kalyan 13:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nehrams2020 recieved 15 points last week and you recieved 14. Epbr123 15:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

that's seems so unfair to me :) --Kalyan 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)