Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Review question

What is the best practice if you are reviewing a nomination and no one participates in the review? 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ping the nominator on their talk page to let them know that you have started the review. If they do not respond then you have a few options. If it meets the criteria you can just pass it, if it is close you can make the fixes yourself and pass it, you can drop a note at a Wikiprojects talk page (or a major contributor to the articles talk page) and see if someone else picks up the nomination or you can fail it. Is the nominator still contributing to Wikipedia? Sometimes, especially with the older reviews, they might be taking a break or, if they are a newish account, might have left. FWIW with the older articles I have found it useful to either check the nominators contributions before starting, ask them on their talk page if they are going to be around for the review or to do a short initial review before conducting a full one. It can be frustrating to conduct a full review and get no response, but that does happen, especially as their is a three to four month backlog. AIRcorn (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that insight. You've given me some useful options to pursue and some good information to consider before starting a review. I'll certainly be incorporating your advice as I move forward. Again, Thanks! 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Criterion 2 and hurricane GA passes

I've looked at a number of recently passes Good Articles about hurricanes/typhoons/tropical storms. Almost all of them appear to have been passed with out criteria 2 having been looked at. There are citations that are not complete, which means they cannot be verified. "Title." Agency. Date. is the sum total of the review for 1/4th to 1/2 the sources used in these articles. No url. No page numbers. Often no authors. When you search for the agency's website, you can find the story (with a url) or you can't find it. If it is the latter, there is a question of how this fact is verifiable. Beyond that, in one review I did, there were two instances where the source did not support the text. This is probably because the writer did not understand the source. But in any case, it means that the text doesn't support it. I'm considering doing WP:GARs on many of these recently elevated articles to address these problems. It is troubling that criteria 2 has been chucked out the window in favour of grammatical fixing that often comes down to wording preferences.--LauraHale (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hey Laura, i think it would be useful if you write here the links to all the hurricane articles recently passed, so we can check them too and make a community reasessment of them. I'd be willing to help. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Criteria 2 can not just be skipped. Who has been reviewing these articles? If the articles passed have obvious problems with the references, you should nominate for reassessment (just my opinion).--Dom497 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If I may, nothing was skipped. All of those citations are from the news story database Lexis Nexis, and we have been using that for months. I offered to Laura (and I'll do the same for any other GA reviewer) to email a copy of the news stories. However, none of them are strictly online. None have a url that are part of that database. Furthermore, none have page numbers, because they weren't actually published in a paper, and many don't have authors because they're in parts of the world where the news stories don't contain authors! As I said to Laura before, if I got those stories from a local newspaper, would it be any different? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If I may, Hurricanehink can say that these all came from Lexis Nexis, but the citations do not say that. How is a reviewer supposed to know if the article source is Lexis Nexis if the citations do not say that? How is a reviewer supposed to know Hurricanehink is using Lexis Nexis if the sources do not say that? The citations as written failed criteria two and the articles should not have been elevated. --LauraHale (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Check again, I changed it so that the citations do indicate they are from Lexis Nexis. I have offered to email those sources that I used, so that shouldn't be a problem. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You've done this for other articles where there are incomplete citations? I don't want to be in e-mail contact with you. We can find a third party to verify these sources existing on Lexis Nexis, because I've checked Lexis Nexis and cannot find them. Once the citations have been fixed (with a preference for non-paywall sources and specific Lexis Nexis database referenced) , we can finish the fact checking part, the plagiarism check and then close the GAR. This clearly wasn't done, because Mark Arsten said he used your reputation as a reason not to do a full review.--LauraHale (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, for all of those 2002 Pacific typhoon articles, I added that they were from Lexis Nexis. If you refuse to get the copy of the articles that I had, then it's your fault. If you think I'm lying, you should just come out and say it, because I find this article witch hunt rather insulting. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of lying. Articles need to pass WP:V. The references as written did not pass WP:V because there was no way to verify them. WP:PAYWALL says "Verifiability in this context means that other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source." The references as written did not allow for that. Do you see my problem? And asking for spotchecks to verify sources is not me accusing you of being a liar; rather it is me saying an article should be checked against criteria. SandyGeorgia and NickiMaria are two authors I would doubt would ever plagiarise. Yet, when their articles have appeared where I review, I checked them for plagiarism and that sources supported the text anyway as that is an assessment criteria.--LauraHale (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, what do you want then? You don't want me to email the sources to validate them, you don't believe that the content I got from the sources back up what's in the article. I don't know what you want me to do. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002) is obviously one that Laura is concerned about. Looking at that, I tend to support HurricaneHink's general explanation, with one caveat: I would add {{subscription required|via=Lexis Nexis}} to inform the reader/reviewer where the sources came from. Resolute 23:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I figured there was some official template I could add, and I asked Laura before (who had a problem with another article), but never got an answer til now. I'll add that to various hurricane articles! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed Kammuri, so I do have a bias here, but I feel that Laura's complaints are frivolous and that mass GAR actions would be disruptive and WP:POINTY. This seems to be a case of FUTON bias, for the most part. Also, Hink raises good points in his post at 23:11 to explain the lack of page numbers and authornames. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with Mark here. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Hahc21, As a reviewer, how would you make sure the article satisfies criteria 2? People talk about WP:GAN being superior WP:DYK but the hurricane articles that I've seen systematically are being elevated at GAN with no one checking against criteria 2. Seriously, how would you have verified the facts for the article? You can't say Lexis Nexis, because you don't know the articles are there as the citations do not say so. --LauraHale (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, off-line sources are difficult to verify. Usually, the reviewer might check (if possible) the sources by itself. What i can consider a problem here is the lack of sufficient information to verify the sources, which Hurricanehink already solved. Also, he gave me a possibility: If the contributor has the physical sources at hand, he ca e-mail me a scan of them so that I can check the verifiability of the information. I've done that before at FAC and FLC. Hope this helps. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There is the WP:Resource request and Wikipedia:Translation services. Also it is worth noting that not every fact has to be verified, only those that fall under "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". For difficult articles you can always google the statement (if it is notable enough to include and controversial then there are usually multiple mentions). At the end of the day some good faith is required, if the sources you do check are fine you can be more confident that the others you cannot easily access are fine. AIRcorn (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

For me, as long I can verify the source exists offline, and it is an offline source, I'm generally willing to assume good faith it isn't plagiarised and the text supports the references unless there is some reason to doubt it. Offline sources are clearly allowed and I prefer them myself in many cases, because book sources do not disappear. Still, if the book doesn't exist in WorldCat, can't be found on Trove, cannot be found on Amazon or Google Books, I'd question that source too. I don't think every source needs to be checked in most cases, but available ones in articles with less than 20, I try to verify everyone as it isn't hard. For ones with more, I shoot for at least 50%, AGF if no problems are found on those. This seems reasonable. I know from articles I have written that people often edit things to change minor details that aren't supported by sources, which is why some spot checking is necessary. Completely disregarding it and not even checking that offline sources (like "Title." Agency. Date. are presented as.) is clearly a GAN criteria violation that should be easily spotted just by glancing at the section and seeing no URLs, no database links, no page numbers, no ISSNs, etc. --LauraHale (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mark, did you check the references per criteria two? How did you verify the information? I think a mass WP:GAR is called for here, unless the citations are made full. If the sources are Lexis Nexis, then they all need to say Lexis Nexis. Otherwise, they clearly are not verifiable. If Hurricanehink would review all his past GAs, fix them to include full citations to the specific lexis nexis database included in the citation (my Lexis Nexis is almost purely legal material), and some one with access to whatever specific Lexis Nexis database (which is cited) is used can review them to factual support of the article, than we can bypass that all and I'd be happy not to do GARs.--LauraHale (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Per above, I indicated they are from LN. They are as full as they can get. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, honestly, they are not. I've checked Lexis Nexis and they are not there. This means they failed verification. --LauraHale (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you said that you only had legal material in your LN, so they wouldn't, would they? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Lexis Nexis has a whole lot of products. Which one is to be used for verification on Lexis Nexis? Your citations, with Lexis Nexis only, are not verifiable. You need to list the specific product to make them WP:V. And your logic says, I should find it on Lexis. I have access to Lexis. I searched it and your sources didn't appear. Did I mention, the source is not verifiable if I go to Lexis and it doesn't exist? --LauraHale (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It's Nexis® UK, which a fellow user has provided to get all of these articles. I'll ask again, do you just want me to email you these sources? I'm not going to paste it on Wiki because the material is copyrighted, but I could email, or a Google document if you want, or something. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

E-mail them to me and give me the articles I have to verify, so we can all end this please :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as I'll have to forward them, what's your email? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I already sent you an email so you can get mine. I don't want to disclose my email here ;) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've got the sources by now. I'll checked them as soon as possible. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've spotchecked six sources, noted on the GAR. I'm at a loss as to why a GAR had to be opened, since we could have done this quite easily with a talk page note. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have checked the sources and they appear to cover all the information attributed to them on the article. So, I guess this is enough proof to satisfy criteria 2. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• To test Laura's claim that the citations were not verifiable and did not provide enough information to find them, I just asked at WP:RX. I provided only what was present in the citations in the article. A completely uninvolved user was able to find them in about a half hour. Therefore, I conclude that Laura's allegation that this was unverifiable is demonstrably false and that this article does, in fact, pass WP:V. I also spotchecked based on those, and found no issues. While I suppose it would have been a good idea for me to spotcheck this article during the review (and every article), it has been demonstrated that there are no issues with this article. All this drama could have been avoided by a simple note and reminder. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think you have just written that the claims were not verified during the review. Passing the article first, then stating that had you been requested to check the claims after awarding the article GA status you would have been prepared to do so is neither here or there. The fact that the claims were later found to be verifiable merely shows that the article was at the necessary GA standard, it does indicate or even "prove" that the first review was adequate. The review is certainly a lot better than some reviews ("I can't find any faults, GA"; Cool, great, GA" or words to that effect have been used as GA reviews), but there is no documentation in Talk:Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002)/GA1 to indicate that the nomination was reviewed against all the requirements of WP:WIAGA - its a good review of grammar and there is a single mention of (I assume) "scope", but there is nothing for example to say that you checked the copyright status of the images (you probably did, but you failed to state that you had done so). It's your review, but it only discusses prose and (I assume) scope; the words used are "Ok, the article looks pretty good to me, seems well written and covers the main aspects. A few small comments and requests I made some copyedits and tweaks to prose, hopefully all are Ok. I'm not much of a meteorologist though, so I can't say much about the technical aspects.". The problem is that "main aspects" could mean scope" but it could also mean WP:WIAGA. You've reviewed an article and awarded it GA status, Laura (and others have) is reviewing the review against the standards (such as WP:WIAGA and the instructions "How to review an article" at the top of the WP:GAN page) and is highlighting deficiencies. Consider, would you award that review a GA, if such a thing was possible (there are criteria for assessing nominations but reviews can't become GAs), no answer is needed it's a rhetorical question? Reviews can get challenged, knowing that does sort of give an incentive to document what checks were carried out. Pyrotec (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I wasn't aware that spotchecks were required before passing an article as a GA; indeed, of the 17 or so GAs I've written, 2 or maybe 3 were spotchecked during the review. So I was a bit surprised to be pilloried for not doing one on this article. But, as I said on the reassessment page, I will spotcheck all articles I do of GAs in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  How do you know that of your 17 or so GAs that only 2 or 3 were spotchecked? I've spotchecked every GA review I've ever done, but I don't make a fucking song and dance about it. Malleus Fatuorum 12:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I suppose some may have spotchecked and remained silent about it. But, I did include the GA review you did for me in the 3 that I knew had been checked. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• @Pyrotec. It's ridiculous to insist that GA reviewers note what they've reviewed against, as all GA reviewers ought to be assessing compliance with the GA criteria. For myself, I've only ever raised issues where I've found non-compliance, not ticked boxes because that's the style du jour. Malleus Fatuorum 12:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Anomaly?

Talk:Bat'leth/GA1 was reviewed a few days ago with a brief comment and a day later the whole nom was blanked. The person who reviewed it did say he wasn't used to doing GANs so I'm asking, would having the nomination page blank cause any issues for showing that it still requires a review? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it, so it should show up as unreviewed in the queue now. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a re-review

Requesting a re-review of Talk:Ellerbusch Site/GA1, which MathewTownsend failed about two months ago. In my opinion, some of the major issues contributing to the failure were my use of a professional style of writing that the reviewer wrongly found to be too hard to understand, and my refusal to speculate on a subject that the sources themselves say cannot be determined conclusively (e.g. saying anything specific would violate WP:OR, so I simply reported that the sources are unclear). In someone else's opinion, the reviewer "failed to apply WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:WIAGA". Nyttend (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As that review is closed your best option is to renominate it. Someone else will pick it up and give it another review. AIRcorn (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. MathewTownsend should not have failed the article and judging by the review, MathewTownsend should not be reviewing articles. In this instance, he should have requested a second opinion. Nyttend, if you like I would be happy to review it for you. Briefly, the only problem I can see is your excessive use of adjectives and adverbs which I would eliminate as redundant and unnecessary. For the record, I think MathewTownsend had only good intentions, but it looks like he had trouble expressing himself on the review page, making communication difficult with the nominator. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I think MathewTownsend's criticism about the vague wording does have merit, and I see you addressed this in the GA reivew. However, I think your defense of using intentionally vague language presents a barrier to the general reader. Summary style might be appropriate in a certain context, but deliberately using vague language in the lead isn't helpful—even if your reasoning is sound. So, I will have to agree with MathewTownsend on this point. However, he did not communicate as well as he could have. Even though I don't agree with MathewTownsend's overall review, I think I understand now what he was getting at and I can see why he was having problems with the topic. This article does need further work, and it would help if it had a tight lead that ties everything together. The nominator might benefit from a peer review and/or a copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not one of MathewTownsend's biggest fans, or even a fan at all, but I think he called this one right. Malleus Fatuorum 12:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Shahrukh Khan

User:Chris G Reverted my edits on WP:GA nominations, I Nominated Shahrukh Khan for Good article Is it wrong Please May I Know the reason for reverting the edit IF any body knows the answer plz reply it on my talk page Greatuser (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

See the answer to this question on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Error in number of GARs

User:Chris G seems to be inactive so posting the message here. So far, I've started 40 reviews but only 35 are showing up. I quickly failed five articles (immediately took off the GA template from the talk right after creating the subpage) and this might be the reason for the error, perhaps can this be fixed? TheSpecialUser ^TSU 12:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As I understood the desired process.. if you wanted to fail an article with comments then you edited the page and then updated the article talk to use the failed GA template (and the bot handles the rest). If you wanted to simply remove a nomination without comments then you remove the template. You've perhaps merged the two processes.. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Opps...I'd take care of it from now. So, any solution? TheSpecialUser ^TSU 12:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You can update the page manually (changed to 42 to reflect your current count on your userpage). --Chris 08:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As I was previously GreatOrangePumpkin, could you merge the numbers together? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Why hasn't my article nomination been listed on this page?

Hi! I had nominated Wonder Woman for a good article. On its talk page, it displays a banner saying that it is currently one of the good article nominees. I had nominated it in the Language and Literature section. But the article has not been listed yet. I did it myself but it got reverted and I realized that a bot is supposed to list it here, its not to be done manually. I's been almost a day since i nominated it.

Did it get quickfailed? But then why is the banner still there on the talk page?

Would appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonderBoy1998 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that instead of placing the template at the top of the talk page as instructed, you put it inside the WikiProjectBannerShell. The shell may have prevented the GAbot from seeing the nomination. If I've diagnosed this correctly, it should appear on the GAN page in the next ten minutes. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: the placement within the shell was the problem; now that I've moved the GA nominee template above the shell, your article is showing up on the GAN page as it ought. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so sos oso much! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Good articles in DYK

The recent discussion at WT:DYK#Proposal has been closed with a consensus seen in favour of allowing new Good articles to be nominated for DYK. There is alot of discussion, mainly from those opposing the move, but it appears likely to happen in one form or another. Under the current proposal any article that has passed a review within five days can be nominted for DYK through the normal DYK methods. Still plenty of discussion going on, so will keep this board updated. AIRcorn (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

When did this happen? This is AWFUL for WP:GAN because it basically means another Wikiproject can take over the reviewing process and set rules for WP:GAN without project consent. This is quite clear because there appears to have been no WP:GAN RFC asking the GAN community if they even wanted it. And given the ongoing RfC over the backlogs... seriously, for the sake of this project, so this project is not killed and opened to the same painful scrutiny that WP:DYK has been subjected to, this project locally needs to over turn it. --LauraHale (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea? All it means is that a nominator or reviewer can add their article to the DYK queue after it has passed here. If it doesn't meet one of their rules then it won't be put on the front page, no big deal. If it is not a Good article then it can be reassessed, again no big deal. In fact that would be useful as an extra quality control step. Sure, the extra scrutiny may well be a two edged sword, but is probably something that will be good for the project as long as we don't ignore it. AIRcorn (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The original close is being contested and three admins have been asked to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Disputed closure of RfC on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. AIRcorn (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Should there be an RfC on WP:DYK proposed control of WP:GAN?

As this project was not consulted in the decision to include project content on WP:DYK, this looks like they have independently have imposed themselves on this wikiproject, and may have the force of changing criteria for WP:GAN as an outside project. DYK criteria do not match up with GAN criteria. There is an ongoing RfC over the backlog drives. Should we start a local RfC on the question of whether or not WP:DYK has a right to oppose their consensus on an unrelated Wikiproject such as WP:GAN? This is really important considering issues like QPQ, one reviewer vs two, who from our project will select which articles to include, etc. --LauraHale (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The current proposal really has very little impact on this project. It could even benefit DYK by bringing in GA reviewers (who will have to do QPQ reviews under there current rules). What we should really do is co-ordinate with that project so the RFC is honoured and both our projects benefit from it. No need for RFC after RFC, especially local ones. AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We should at least wait until the drives RFC is closed. And also, DYK cannot modify by any means the GA criteria. They may impose additional points to have the article promoted at DYK but as Aricorn says, it has very little impact here. It is like the opposite: We will work as usual and most changes will be done there at DYK. How will it work? Each nominator that has one of its articles passed may take it to DYK the following 5 days of its promotion; I consider that most of the DYK critetia is already way sartisfied by the GA standars so that the nominator may only have to chose one hook and make the QPQ review. — ΛΧΣ21™ 07:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Added a point to the instructions, on giving notification, which I lifted from the GAR instructions. User Cynwolfe has expressed concern that unqualified articles are passing GA through the ignorance of the reviewer: not being involved in the article often means not knowing enough to assess whether coverage of the topic is complete, so involving knowledgeable editors is a must. — kwami (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not necessarily opposed to the idea, but lets see what others think first. One objection is that it adds a lot more work to the reviewer, especially for articles with lots of Wikiproject banners. Can it be done through an automated process? AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

We've had this problem in the road projects many times, to the point where I'm reluctant to trust a non-roads project member reviewing (with some exceptions). The editor usually misses all of the problems and does a blanket pass of the article. That being said, this change needs discussion. --Rschen7754 21:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds more like an issue with reviewer competence than non-specialist reviewers. I think any competent reviewer should be able to judge any article against the criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Notifications exist. Wikipedia:WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding/Article alerts‎, Wikipedia:GLAM/HOPAU/Article alerts‎ and Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Article alerts‎ are three that I have on my watch list. The problem is low volume Wikiprojects often do not have many people watching them. --LauraHale (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree here. The reviewer must have a reasonable level of knowledge it will be better if the reviewer has some kind of knowledge related to the subject of the article xe is revieweing to be able to spot the issues. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess I worded my comments in the wrong way. What i meant to say is that if the reviewer has some kind of knowledge related to the aticle xe is reviewing , it will do good to the review, although, of course, this is not mandatory by any means. I don't know much about biology and have had goo times revieweing such articles. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the nominator must have that, and an ability to express himself adequately and comprehensibly to a non-expert, which the majority of his readers will be. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Coverage doesn't need to be "complete" to meet the GA criteria, it simply needs to be broad, and address the major topics of its subject. As for notifications, why shouldn't we reasonably expect a nominator to have the article on his or her watch list? As for Rschen's apparent suggestion that only project members are competent to review road articles, for instance, I think that's plainly absurd. Project members are prone to use unfamiliar jargon, and to propagate common misunderstandings or misinterpretations among themselves, and to believe mistakenly that their project standards trump the GA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly that; it's more of common errors in road articles (sourcing errors in particular) that other reviewers don't always catch. We've had plenty of good experiences with non-project editors reviewing our articles, but we've also gotten burned pretty badly, with reviewers doing a blind pass or asking for things that are not in the GA criteria (the Racepacket arbitration and the last backlog drive come to mind). --Rschen7754 22:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that there is already a huge shortage of reviewers, and a long backlog, what benefit is there in adding more burden to the reviewer? As LauraHale says, for projects which are active, there are article alerts. And I am a little concerned by the idea that only project members can adequately review articles. This is strange, to say the least, particularly considering that there are some very obscure subjects up for review, coupled with many inactive projects which might cover them. Again, there are very few reviewers, and if we wait for someone with "reasonable" subject knowledge, the backlog is only going to get worse as reviewers simply give up on articles they know nothing about. I agree with Malleus; someone unfamiliar with the subject is more likely to spot jargon or poor explanations for the general reader. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that you have to be a project member to do a review, however I have noticed that non-members don't always know where coverage gaps or sourcing issues lie. MF is right that reviews from non-members are great on the jargon front, so it's more of a balance between the two concepts. I will say that notifying all of the projects with banners on some articles could be a burden to reviewers. When it comes to articles which are tagged my multiple projects, some of which have scopes based on geography (a single US state or all of the US) and some of which based on the subject matter of the articles, I'd rather ping the subject-matter project over the geographic one if I thought I was going to have questions on the terminology or the broadness of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 23:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with Sarastro1: the current automated notification for projects is sufficient. Requiring notification by the nominator to all the relevant projects when it's already automated is redundant and excessive, and the same to any reviewer who takes on the article. In short, I'm against the (since reversed) attempt by Kwami to add this to the requirements on the GAN page. (I also don't think it's necessary to notify all the major contributors to the article, and everyone who ever did a GA review to it in the past. If the article isn't on their watchlist, then they're no longer interested enough.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that this was automated, so one problem may be that all the relevant projects don't have a banner on a given article. I don't think the GA reviewer needs to be an expert in the subject matter; I just think the reviewer, if not well-versed in the subject matter, needs to be diligent about getting input. The other element is purely human: nobody likes to hear that they don't know as much as they think they do. If I review an article and feel as if, wow, I learned a lot, and look how many good images and sources are used here, and the writing is really engaging, then I'm not going to like hearing that no, it has major coverage gaps that I would recognize if I had a sufficient body of knowledge from which to judge. I have to disagree with one point here: unlike a backlog of problems that need to be addressed, having a GA backlog does no harm. By contrast, plastering the GA symbol on articles that aren't good harms WIkipedia's credibility. If a competent high school teacher can read a GA and think hm, this doesn't really cover such and such, and makes errors here and here and here, and doesn't address the question of etc., then that to me is more damaging to Wikipedia's mission that having a smaller number of GA articles. There's no pressing need to promote more GAs unless the rating means something. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I also have to demur from the reasoning that it's OK if articles with faulty content pass the GA criteria. That indicates to me that there's something too lax about GA content criteria. A Good Article should be a good article. It shouldn't contain misleading, erroneous, or notably deficient content. Saying "but according to our GA criteria, that's OK" would cause me to exclaim that the GA rating shouldn't make us look dumb. I agree wholeheartedly with Malleus's point that articles should be accessible to general readers, and that editors who don't normally contribute to the content area are best at assessing whether the article can be read and understood by those who don't already know the topic. So my desire is not to exclude anybody from the process, but to make sure that the GA rating means something by trying to involve more editors. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I take your point, and perhaps what you describe is the case occasionally - reviews can be uneven in quality. But I think that any good reviewer would automatically do what you have described and would be "diligent", whereas a less effective reviewer may just think "wow, I learnt a lot". For example, I know of at least one excellent reviewer who always checks wikiproject guidelines to see if the main areas of a topic are covered; another always does their own research into a topic to see if anything notable is missing; source checks also reveal where there are coverage issues, and I have raised this at reviews more than once when an article lacks something covered in the sources. Additionally, wikiprojects do not have all the answers. There was a problem a while ago with at least one project whose members reviewed other members' articles and passed them quickly after cursory reviews. And a backlog is not ideal; if nominators see their articles unreviewed after two or three months, they will not be too impressed with the system. I'm also struggling to see where anyone is arguing that it is OK to pass faulty content. The process is designed for one person reviews, which has good points and bad points, but that is what a GA is. What you describe, with multiple reviewers, is FAC. Perhaps the problem is one of cursory reviews, which has come up here several times before, rather than with the GA process in itself. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is cursory reviews, so I see no safeguard against this unless you have two or three people look at an article instead of one. But I've certainly see a slowing down of Wikiproject activity, so my perception of project review probably dates to a bygone era. I'll try to look for more positive ways to help. From the input I've gotten, it may be that I've had the bad luck to have encountered a relatively high proportion of unpleasant experiences in the GA process, in which I participate rarely. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:The Nekci Menij Show/GA1

User Dmartin969 (talk · contribs) failed the article above with the following rationale: "Fail due to lack of references." This is a [relatively] new user [his account dates back to Jun 14, 2009 but xe only has ~280 edits] and for that reason I know and assume xe may not completely know how GAN works and understand the GA criteria. For that reason, I have reverted his close and re-opened the review. Any interested user can take it; if noone is interested, I may finally take it myself. Also, I'd like to add that Dmartin969 has Talk:Marceline the Vampire Queen/GA1 currently in review and I shall recommend taking a look. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Marceline the Vampire Queen review was concluded a day and a half ago, and the article listed at the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh well, I only checked his contributions; i was a little busy to dig into his another review... — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Changing Section Headings

Wikipedical is rather keen to change the section headings. The current proposal is to 'rename the section, "Fiction media and drama" with subsections, "Film," "Television," "Theatre, dance and opera," and "Other media." And then change the "Media and journalism" section to "Non-fiction media and journalism."' The previous thread didn't get much input, but there was no real opposition either. If anyone has any opposition, or alternate suggestions -- speak now or forever hold your peace. Otherwise, I'll make the change in the next few days. --Chris 09:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that unless there is a strong movement that it should change, it shouldn't. Silence shouldn't be considered consent. I've been away from the discussion for a while, or I would have objected to "Fiction media and drama", which is presumably two things: "fiction media" and "drama"; I've never heard the former term used, and it isn't obvious what it means. (Where would "reality television" would go, fiction or non-fiction?) So if that's the proposal, I'm against it in its current form. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually silence does indicate consensus, albeit a weak one. AIRcorn (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that's how WP:BOLD works: unless someone reverts, the change sticks. I guess my breaking the silence breaks the weak consensus. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say that doing nothing maintains problems. The heading "Theatre, film and drama" excludes television and radio, even though they are part of the section. I also think the subsections that Chris mentioned would be useful, as other GAN sections have more than two subsections, and would ease the burdens on nominators and reviewers. There has been talk of a change before I even made any suggestions, and there was some discussion when I made the proposal, so this isn't just my acting alone. Obviously there is a wording problem that has to do with overlap – media is used for both artistic and social purposes. Currently at the "Social sciences and society" section, there is a subsection "Television and radio non-fiction." BlueMoonset, your question is still valid- where does "reality television" go? Would you have another suggestion for changing the section title? -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think no matter what names we have there are always going to be articles that don't fit into any categories. Personally I think they should be based on volume of use so one category is not overloaded and another almost always empty. With that in mind you could get rid of media and journalism altogether and just have the one section titled Media. Then you can have the television and film subsections under it. I would suggest removing Theatre, dance and opera and put it into Other media as I don't really see many articles nominated in that category. It may also be useful creating another category for biographies as some actors/actresses work in both film and television. It doesn't really matter if the article does not completely fit into a category, as long as specialist reviewers can find the ones they are looking for relatively easily. AIRcorn (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel like I'm repeating myself a little (Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 13#.22Theatre.2C film and drama.22 section change proposal, but what do you think of Media and drama as the main section, with subsections: Film, Television, Theatre, dance and opera, and Other media? I do think it's important to specify "drama" or "theatre" somewhere even if it's a relatively small number of articles, because "media" is such a broad term- technically "video games," "music," and "literature" fit into media (which is why I was struggling to fit the word "fiction" in somewhere). I would also rather change "Media and journalism" to something like "Magazines and print journalism," removing the word "Media," but leaving the journalism section in "Social science." Thoughts? -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't see the point in creating a section which will be empty most of the time (only 26 articles have ever passed according to Wikipedia:Good articles/Theatre, film and drama#Theatre, musical theatre, dance and opera). If you really want to mention the above why not just have one Theatre, dance, opera and other media. AIRcorn (talk) 08:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• That compromise works for me. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

As I interpret this, Media and drama as the main heading, and then subsections:

• Film
• Television
• Theatre, dance, opera and other media

Correct? Is that OK with you BlueMoonset, or are you still opposed? --Chris 07:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what happens to the current "Media and journalism" subtopic under "Social science". Does it indeed become "Magazines and print journalism"? (If so, I'm assuming that the sub-subtopics "Media" and "Television and radio non-fiction" are being moved to "Media and drama".) I agree with Aircorn: given the volume, it seems that Film, Television, and the long-named "other media" are the three categories to go with; although I think you'll have precious little radio, you'll have as little opera (if not less) and likewise dance, so it might be clearer if it became "Theatre, dance, opera, radio and other media". But that's awfully long to type in the subtopic field of the GAN template.

One thing we should consider is how to divide the sub-subtopics, so we're ready when Chris G is with the software. With Film and Television now their own topics, what happens to actors? It seems to me that Fictional characters are pretty straight forward, going under the medium they appear in. (There will be a few shows that go from one medium to the other; I'd stick with the one that's most notable.) When the change is made, do we go back and remap the television shows and characters in with the television episodes, the films and their characters to the new Film subtopic, and leave everything else as is? Will the "other" subtopic field now be called "Other media", "Media and drama", or the long, full name? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the section headings. --Chris 13:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The wikicup is discussing the point scoring system for GAs in case anyone is interested.

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Straw poll time AIRcorn (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC about Backlog Elimination Drives

The Request for comment has started. I invite all GAN community to take a look at the RFC and give their opinion. To vote, and leave comments, please follow the link above to the main RFC page. Thanks — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The RFC is closed. I will post the results on a new thread below. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Find my GA reviews

Perhaps a stupid question, but does anyone know how I can get a listing of GA reviews I've done in the past? I assume this is easily available given that we now have numbers of reviews next to our names, but I scratched around and couldn't seem to come up with anything in search results. Tx. --Batard0 (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't exist any such list unless you keep a track of one. However, you can get something from here :) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Here you go:

• Dennis Bergkamp
• Cedar Point
• Phil Nevin
• 2005 TNA Super X Cup Tournament
• Iván Nova
• 1920 Canton Bulldogs season
• 2011–12 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team
• 2011–12 Harvard Crimson men's basketball team
• Sacrifice (2005)
• Burundi women's national football team
• Central African Republic women's national football team
• Gambia women's national football team
• Guinea-Bissau women's national football team
• Togo women's national football team
• Davis Tarwater
• Venues of the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics

(I would link directly to the review pages, but its late and that is surprisingly more complicated to do) --Chris 16:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ah ha! Thanks very much for that. Much appreciated. --Batard0 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:GAProgress

Just a note that I've created a template called Template:GAProgress that provides a succinct barometer of progress on reviews. None of the existing review templates seemed to fill this purpose; to me, they're somewhat cumbersome to use and take up a significant amount of space on the page. I've been putting this at the top of the review page, as can be seen for example here, and updating the criteria as they're evaluated. For me, it serves as a quick and easy way to ensure that I'm going through and checking all the criteria as a review goes along. It's relatively simple and straightforward. Criticisms and improvements welcome, as always. --Batard0 (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Future of GAN Backlog Elimination Drives

Main page: Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Future of GAN Backlog Elimination Drives

This request for comment is closed. After 15 days of community vote, we have reached consensus on several things related to drives, and others may need further discussion here. The Big Question (Do we want drives?) was answered and, with 76% of approval, the answer is yes. Now, several proposals were made. The approved ones were:

• Proposal 3: Disqualifying process: Each user with more than 5 removed reviews may be disqualified from the drive.
• Proposal 4 - Part 2: Drive duration: Drives will last for one month.
• Proposal 5: Drive scope: Drives will only be aimed to review the oldest nominations. Older nominations are those with more than one-to-two months on the queue. Nominations with less than a month should be excluded from the drive until all older nominations are reviewed.
• Proposal 6 - Part 1: Drive and barnstars, Part 1: Barnstars will now be given for users who reviewed 5, 10 and 25 nominations. There will be neither leaderboard or a number-one position race, and disruptive competition for holding the highest number of reviews is discouraged.

  Proposal 6 - Part 1 got 67% of support, which is below of the 70% threshold. Although, several of the opposes expressed support to the proposal, and though it is considered as approved. This, as well as other proposals will be revisited at WT:GAN starting Novembner 16, 2012.

• Proposal 6 - Part 3: Drive and barnstars, Part 3: Each user may submit up to two reviews for consideration to receive a special barnstar which will be awarded to the best three reviews of the drive. A vote may be held with coordinators, drive reviewers and participants voting for their favourite review in order to select the three reviewers who will receive the award [each reviewer may receive only one award].

  This proposal will be further discussed before being implemented at drives, mainly because of its complexity. Although, as this is not being used until the drive's end, there is plenty of time to discuss how it may work. This will be held at WT:GAN.

Several other proposals were not approved by community. Several review limits and restrictions were proposed to see how community visualized them and they were strongly rejected. This leads to a very interesting conclusion: Reviewers, and users in general, are not interested in adding bureucracy and excessive limits to participate in drives, which is completely reasonable. Although, they expressed their satisfaction with the existence of better quality control measures, as well as disqualifying processess to avoid low-quality reviews and disruptive users.

An interesting proposal that will need discussion is the timing between drives. No consensus was reached whether a 1 month-3 month or 1 month-5 month rule will be used, and several users stated that drives may only be needed when necessary. Also, additional proposals were added, showcasing promising replacements for the drives, although further community input may be needed for that, in a future. Finally, I thank all users who participated. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, for historical purposes, I am moving the RFC page to Wikipedia space. The new address can be seen above. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Drives timespan

At the recent RFC, a clear consensus was not reached about the time between drives. So, I am re-starting the discussion here with the following three options. Please select the one you prefer. The one with the highest number of support will be the one chosen. As I am the user doing the proposal, I will restrain myself from voting, just like I did on the RFC. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Drives should be held on a "one month on, three months off" basis

1. Statυs (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Drives should be held on a "one month on, five months off" basis

Drives should be held when needed

1. I'll add my name to this section, even though I supported the first proposal previously. From a practical standpoint, I think it'll be tough to enforce a strict one month on, three months off timeline because it all depends on users like Hahc organizing the drives. We can't expect them to do this indefinitely (it would be nice if they did, though) and thus I think we should acknowledge that it'll depend mostly on the organizers making it happen when it's needed. I would support a qualified statement like "Drives should be held when needed, but should take place no less than three months after the end of the previous drive". Longer breaks between drives encourages more participation because the opportunity to take part is rarer, but I think five months is a little too much given the backlog. The danger with having drives too close together is that reviewers might hold off on reviews until the next drive starts, which doesn't really help the project. Three months is reasonable in this regard. Eventually I think we need to come to some kind of consensus on a more sustainable way to address the backlog, but that's a conversation for another day. Thanks again to the organizers for putting this together. --Batard0 (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
   1. I'd also support a statement like "Drives should be held for a duration of one month with three-month gaps between them, subject to the availability of organizers to arrange them." --Batard0 (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

      Well, I will always be available as organizer, regardless of the option taken by community :). Id I am not available, is because i left Wikipedia. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

2. Sometimes drives are not needed. It depends on the size of the backlog. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration

I'm brainstorming ways to better address the backlog and am thinking collaborative reviews might be worth trying. It's easier to stay in shape when you have a running partner; maybe it'll be easier to get reviews done if we do more of them together, especially of longer articles. Collaboration could slow things down if we disagree about aspects of a review, but I think in most instances serious disagreement is unlikely. Just as an experiment, does anyone feel like collaborating with me on a review of Albert Pujols (trying to address the sports & rec queue, which is quite long)? --Batard0 (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but how would it work in practice? Take different sections? Look at different aspects (e.g. prose, sourcing, etc)? And speaking of brainstorming, Resolute had quite an interesting idea here. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I like Resolute's idea as a format for future drives...as far as collaboration logistics, off the top of my head, maybe one person could review the prose from bottom to top, other person does from top to bottom until we've collectively reviewed the whole article. The prose in my experience is usually the most laborious part of a review. We agree to trust each others' judgment on prose issues. After that, we then both make any comments on other issues like RS, OR, neutrality, broadness and focus, hopefully coming to a swift agreement on what needs to be done (if anything). It could potentially be difficult logistically, but it might be worth giving a try to see what it's like in practice. --Batard0 (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Next Drive

Initial comments

Okay, now that community agreed that we are going to have drives, when the next one should be held? I was pointed at November 17, 2012 - December 17, 2012 as a possible timespan, so that it does not touch our holy christmas days. So, who agrees having the drive on these dates? Or is it better to wait until January? — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the AfC WikiProject is still running their drive, and potential GAN reviewers may be participating there. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I find it quite stupid to begin in the middle of the month. I say January 1 to February 1 (of 2013). From there, 3 months off (March, April and May) and another drive from June 1 to July 1. Statυs (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would suggest doing it now -- as soon as possible. the 17th sounds reasonable. There's always going to be a reason to hold off another month (people are in school and want to wait for a break, it's too close to the holidays, etc.) so might as well get it rolling. There's no reason we need to have it perfectly pegged to the first of a given month. Any time is a fine time. --Batard0 (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry for being bold, but it is November 17 and I decided to start the drive. A notice will be posted here and at GAN ASAP. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Six month review

I've noticed that Talk:Malaria/GA2 is still going on for six months. What surprises me most about that is that there's new things popping up every day. From how I read it, the review stopped being about the GA criteria long ago, and it would probably pass FA with little difficulty with how detailed the review has been. Should it just be passed. The reviewer and writer can still collaborate on it, but it seems to have passed our jurisdiction a long way back. Wizardman 03:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed more and more of these six-month reviews cropping up... concerning. --Rschen7754 03:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Another example: Talk:Otomi language/GA1, where Maunus (who nominated it) is on extended wikibreak (scrambled account password and everything), but based on a recent email exchange, according to the reviewer, G Purevdorj, "I think he is willing to continue working on the article, in late December. So if nothing substantial happens until mid-January, this review will be closed." In such a case, shouldn't the review just be closed, since the nominator can always renominate after the (substantial and needed) work is done? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Malaria should be stopped and listed. That has to be some kind of record. I'd tell them that they should continue to discuss on the talk page and perhaps take it to FA; the kind of detail they're going into is far beyond the scope of a GA review. --Batard0 (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(The malaria reviewer.) For what it's worth, 1) this is my first good article review 2) please notice that my second good article review has already improved by being closed (see Talk:Interstitial cystitis/GA1), and most importantly 3) we are still making progress with accuracy/verifiability:[1][2]. So I don't think we're beyond GA territory yet. Biosthmors (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have passed the article. --Rschen7754 20:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And the nominator has reverted me twice, insisting on being allowed to complete the review or he will withdraw. I don't intend to revert again. Comments? --Rschen7754 20:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I failed the article; will work on it more and resubmit at a later date. Sasata (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I find this action interesting and objectionable, considering my concerns (above, as the reviewer) were not even responded to/discussed first. Biosthmors (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:GAN where it clearly says that reviews should not take longer than two weeks. Please also see WP:GAN/R where six-month reviews are definitely not the norm. --Rschen7754 21:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, of course there are "rules" here. But when you have two volunteers working on improving the content (of such an important topic, mind you), why is it good for Wikipedia to risk inconveniencing them in an unpleasant way, when there are more tactful ways of proceeding? O well. I'm ready to keep working on the topic. Biosthmors (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Having such a long and drawn-out review is inconsiderate to the nominator, and inconsiderate to the process (considering our backlog - if we spent 6 months on each review, it would be ridiculous). You're of course welcome to collaborate, but GAN is not the venue for this (try the talk page?) --Rschen7754 21:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The nominator and I were working well together, and we had discussed the length of the review multiple times on their talk page, for the record! And as I mentioned above, I'm fine with putting more weight on the process of things (such as keeping the time of a review down to a much shorter length of time). Biosthmors (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about the nomination been closed or opened. Both of you can keep working at the /GA2 page until you believe that everything is addressed. Then, Sasata can renominate and it will be passed. That's all. The issue here is all the months the nomination has been listed as "under review". — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It is rather distressing to see an effective cooperation to make an article on an important subject very high quality interrupted in this way. I do think Sasata and Biosthmors have the ultimate say in what happens to the article—promoting on the basis of a discussion here seems like a bad precedent. On the other hand, I think Rschen's correct about venue. Using a Good Article review to provide a detailed peer review for quality beyond the strict GA criteria is usually unobjectionable. That said, while a review of such a broad and complex article can be expected to be lengthy, six months is carrying it rather far, and the page is taking up real estate at WP:GAN in the mean time. It might have been better to ask the nominator and reviewer to try to take, say, three weeks and try to strictly apply themselves to the Good Article criteria, continuing the peer review afterwards, but what's done is done. Choess (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

How about a New Reviewer Recruitment and Training Drive instead?

The two main criticisms of backlog elimination drives are that they lead to poorer reviews and that after a drive, the backlog builds up again. An increase in competent, regular reviewers is the only long-term solution. Hence I suggest that the current drive focus on attracting and recruiting new reviewers, then training them to become competent, regular reviewers.

For example, experienced reviewers could post on noticeboards and talk pages, advertising GA reviewing as an enjoyable process for gaining knowledge and improving articles. There could be a page for editors to sign up as new reviewers, for experienced reviewers to welcome and adopt. Each review by a new reviewer would be checked by an experienced reviewer, both to provide feedback and to prevent mistakes from frustrating nominators. Awards for experienced reviewers could be based on successful recruitment and guidance of new reviewers, while awards for new reviewers could be based on both number and quality of reviews. Reviewers could also brainstorm ideas for making the reviewing process more pleasant for both new and experienced reviewers.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow I've seen that several alternate proposals are being made. The main issue is that, in general, users agree having backlog elimination drives. The last RFC added some additional measures to avoid having bad reviews, etc. Although, I would like to see several well-developed proposals to be put into and RFC so people can pick up one of them, or the drives. But that should be, at least, six months ahead, in my opinion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the relevant page, sixteen users took advantage and expressed an opinion (or several). Sixteen editors is hardly representative of those who regularly review at WP:GAN and/or at GAN backlog drives. The current drive also seems to have been started with haste, less than one days notice, and in effect its been running a day already with no publicity. Pyrotec (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to do publicity, but have been somewhat busy, I'd really appreciate all the help. Well, the RFC lasted for 15 days and received publicity. All the users there were the ones who took their times to participate. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way. I posted a banner here on WT:GAN, at WP:GAN, on my talk and several users' talk pages. I will add it to the GA Wikiprojhect today. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What I am proposing is a change of direction, focusing on recruiting and training new reviewers rather than simply attacking the backlog. How much support is there for such a change in direction? If there is sufficient support, then we can discuss implementation details, such as the examples in the second paragraph of my original post. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You got my support. We need new reviewers, who, well-trained, will help the project very much. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

(To Hahc21) Sorry, the flashing banner sort of blinded me, so I didn't read it. I've now got the sunglasses on (its dark here, I've also got the lights on). I did know about the RTC, but I did not respond at the time because it was considering my options, at about that time took a week off, and for perhaps two or three weeks was only spending one or two days a week on wikipedia. Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Back in the April 2010 drive I did 58 reviews in one month and decided "never again". I did eleven reviews in the last round but one was struck off since it did not get closed with one-week of the review and another one was discounted because it was not placed On Hold before the end of the review (but these two events are somewhat trivial) and I had several reviews On Hold before the drive started. On top of that I checked (I believe) 156 reviews carried out by other reviewers, and I suspect that I'm comming to the same decision I made after the April 2010 drive. I'm not all that interested in doing a lot of work in one month to temporarily reduce the backlog, when much of the drive only cleared the newer and easier to review material and the list very quickly expanded back to what it was before. The change of direction is of more interest to me than yet another drive that will only have a marginal effort for a limited time; and I have no interest in repeating it frequently (several times per year). Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Pyro, glad to see those reviews didn't kill you :) I think one of the most important things is to keep the topic-areas with supported wikiprojects involved; I know the VG project has a lot of backlogged articles that I'm going to be attempting to address soon. That might be the best option to drawing in new reviews on a project-by-project basis. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No it certainly did not kill me. Thanks for your interest. VG (video games?). I now only tend to review the topics that interest me, so I don't do video games, sports, pop music, most TV soap programs. Even with those biases of mine I've completed over 450 GAN reviews in a little over four years and there are still plenty of articles I would like to review (and I tend to like "long articles" I can review over several days). MILHist have had at least one backlog drive at GAN in the last couple of years. I do review some of their "war/battle" nominations, but I've never done a video game. Pyrotec (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am neutral about drives. You can see that i did not voted on the RFC on neither of the proposals. People chose to have drives and that's what they want, I guess. I successfully introduced some new methods: now drives are focused on old nominations first, then newer ones. We have a table listing the oldest nominations and our goal is to have them all reviewed instead of cutting the backlog in half. Of course, each reviewer is still free to choose which articles to review. Also, severla other things were added/removed. I hope this helps until we develop a more broad RFC showcasing new alternate proposals to drives. I'd love to see that in February-March 2013. Sooner would be disruptive, in my opinion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Hahc21 and Pyrotec support this change of direction (of course, so do I). Could we get input from more reviewers? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I support it, and will support anything that helps us to bring new potential reviewers to GAN, and teach them the ropes. We cannot be the same reviewers forever [I was new just back in March and I got interested in helping assessing good content.] I guess that our personal experiences may help us design a very effective proposal. The main issue is that I see [and the RFC more or less assured this vision] folks are not leaning to change that easy. Many of us are used to have drives when needed instead of a more permanent and running process that becomes part of the process itself, instead of a solution to high number of pending reviews. Drives are not part of GAN, they are a tool that we use [as well as several other Wikiprojects] to reduce the workload, but they don't represent our GAN community. We need someting that becomes a part of GAN; something that is only ours, a process designed by us, for us, and that's not easy to achieve. I am willing to help on anything that aims to do this, at 100%. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This time round I probably won't participate. That doesn't mean I won't review articles. I go in periods where I am in writing mode and periods where I am in reviewing/clean-up mode. Right now I'm in the latter which means I will probably be doing some reviewing in the near future. I don't mind people double-checking my reviews, but I would rather that people spend their time checking new reviewers (where the potential for improvement is the greatest). Now I can even get disqualified from the drive if someone which almost certainly has less reviews than me doesn't like what I'm doing. Is Talk:Boise, Idaho/GA1 a fail or a quick-fail? If I post it wrong I can get minus points. The bottom line is that I'm not motivated from participating in some competition and I have enough barnstars to bathe in. If other people get excited over the competition, good for them. But every time there is a drive there is a post-drive dry-up, which results in GAN essentially being broken five-sixth of the time. If we could create a system where people are motivated throughout the year for reviews, perhaps more editors would joint the GA process. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Now I can even get disqualified from the drive if someone which almost certainly has less reviews than me doesn't like what I'm doing." I just wanted to leave a note about this: Removed reviews are those that are truly considered as inappropiate [e.g. an article was passed but fails to meet criteria 2, etc]. Most reviews are well done, overall, so it's difficult to have more than 5 reviews removed. Last drive, only Status (talk · contribs) and TBrandley (talk · contribs) achieved more than 5 removed reviews, so this new "disqualifying process" is more or less useless. It works as a tool to avoid rubber-stamp reviews: More of an enforcer than an actual thing. I hope you understand my point. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As a relatively new reviewer (7 reviews as nominator, 8 as a reviewer I think), I would also support the recruitment and 'training' of fellow new-reviewers. The problems with GAN are fairly well documented but Arsenikk has summed up the most pressing one IMO: GAN is a slow, slow process unless there is a drive on and new, good reviewers are a must if this is to improve in my view. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps new reviewer training could be tied into the drives? Or in addition to regular drives, work more at trying to recruit and train new reviewers as an on-going thing? Disclosure: I have never reviewed a GAN. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Backlog eligible article list

Why does it include reviews underway before the backlog drive? I noticed Talk:Donald Cabral/GA1 on the list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate quick-fail

Hi. I believe this review (nominated by Till (talk · contribs)) is an inappropriate quick-fail because it is not part of the quick-fail criteria and it isn't even correct, "too early" is wrong without explanation, and "plagiarized other's work" is also wrong, and is a personal attack, by failing reviewer, Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs), who had personally attacked the user again later and me for warning the editor. Anyone can nominate an article for good article status, as it is not owned by any single editor, per WP:OWN and WP:GAN. Whether it meets the criteria or not, a full review explaining the issues with the article needs to be there, because it is not part of the good article quick-fail criteria. This should be probably be reopened or renominated, in my opinion. Comment on content, not the contributor. TBrandley 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it, there certainly seems to be a depth of information that would instantly dispel the "too soon" notion. If it had worked its way up the nomination queue quite a bit then the quickfail might warrant deletion to restore its place in the queue; if it was a recent nom with a prompt review then just renominate. GRAPPLE X 00:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to fall under the The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. category, possibly The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint., due to the fact that the song is still receiving new chart positions weekly. It's set to reach #1 in the US this week. Yes, anyone can nominate an article for GA status, but when the said person is nominating it for GA status to piss off the highest contributor to the article... Statυs (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I do think it is too soon to nominate, especially as it's still a very current song and the article is being updated daily, but I disagree with it being quick-failed. All someone needed to do was step in an remove the nomination and nominate in a few weeks. AARON• ^TALK 00:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Status, that seems to contradict to your statement on this page; "Updating chart positions and adding new singles does not qualify as significant day to day changes.". Checkmate. Till 00:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad you brought this up, so I can put an end to this nonsense. User: Till has virtually added nothing to the article. It's pretty clear that you should be a main contributor for GA/FA nominations. Two other editors (who actually wrote the article) confronted him about it, which he simply ignored and didn't care to listen. So yes, I failed the article because it was nominated by someone who has done nothing for it (misrepresentation) and because it was a premature nomination. The song is still charting, still selling, still being performed live and much more information will be available for it now that the parenting album just got released today (the two editors also told Till about the premature nomination). Now we have Bradley, who needs to mind his own damn business and not post ridiculous warnings about being civil and telling me I'm attacking others for writing "I can't believe some people". So yes, apparently, "I can't believe some people" is a threat.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You obviously haven't checked the list of contributors to the article, because if you did, you would see that I've made about forty edits to the article. By the way, your theory is WP:OR and thus non-existent/ not actionable. GAs can be nominated by anyone, please do your homework and read WP:GAN. Till 00:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Assume good faith, though. Nathan, I stand by my above comment, read that. Stop personally attacking me! If you'd didn't want me to see or comment, perhaps you should have noticed that Wikipedia is public, and e-mail is for "private" crap. And, I didn't say it was a threat, I said it was a personal attack. Comment on content, not the contributor. And, Till has actually worked on the article, it doesn't qualify for quick-fail per WP:RGA criteria and guideline. TBrandley 00:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Takes me back to elementary school, when our teachers always said, "no bullying". TBrandley 00:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

He didn't work, he only made 37 edits, most of which were copy-editing and bullying me at the edit summaries. He didn't wrote at least one section. The Chart Performance as it is now was written by User:Iluvrihanna24. He is plagiarizing somebody else's work. How is that WP:OWN? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Unless material has been directly copied into the article from the sources then there is no plagiarism here. Nominating an article written by someone else is not plagiarism, as all of the work is still directly attributed to the editors responsible when you go looking for it. That's a fallacious argument so there's no need to throw it around. The meat of this is entirely down to the differing in opinions of how important chart positions are to an article's stability, and the application of WP:OWN that seems to be coming into play, as GA nomination is open to any editor, regardless of their involvement in the article. GRAPPLE X 00:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You song editors really need to sort your shit out (I have just seen the ANI threads). Please do not carry your feuds and personal grievances over here. Most current articles need to be updated (i.e think a sportsman who is still playing or an ongoing TV series) so that it is still charting by itself is not a valid reason for a quickfail. At this stage anyone can nominate an article for GA status, so that is also a non-reason. You all need to step back from one another. AIRcorn (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, is that so Aircorn? So I can just take an article you've been cultivating in your sandbox and nominate it myself then? You won't mind?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but that is beside the point. There is no rules against doing so. If you want to make a proposal that only major contributors can nominate articles that is a different discussion. If it is a behavioral issue then take it (back) to ANI. You can't just decide to quickfail it for that reason. AIRcorn (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This place is timeless. What does it matter if the thing is re-nominated in a few weeks? FWIW, I would have quick-failed on stability grounds but, hey, why the urgency for GA status? - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I too would have quick-failed on grounds of stability, and I suspect that many others would have done as well. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. You'd off your top. No, it's not besides the point. And already 7 editors (myself included) have expressed that they felt the article was nominated prematurely. That says enough. Everyone, just get back to your shit and stop feeding this fruitless and meaningless thread. You certain editors just stay away from each other. Simple as that. Good day!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is beside the point. We can't just go around making up our own rules. AIRcorn (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just a suggestion from an outside observer: perhaps it's worth adding a sentence to WP:GNGA that says something like, "It is considered common courtesy to allow the major contributor(s) to an article the first opportunity to nominate it for a good article review." WP:FAC has a statement like this: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 00:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea. NE Ent 01:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Good idea, although I'd add a bit: "...unless the main contributor is on Wikibreak, or has retired." — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(Ignoring further attempts at this tiresome discussion) I agree, this statement should definitely be included.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• That would literally solve this whole thing from happening. It's sort an unwritten respect rule that you don't nominate articles that others have contributed much more than you have. Unless, of course, they are no longer a part of the project. When Tomica reverted his GAN the first time, Till should have stepped down. Statυs (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with everything Status wrote.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I support the proposal by Scott, very good idea, and makes sense. I also agree with Hahc21's further comment. Thank you! TBrandley 01:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I would just go with the FAC wording. It is a little stronger and less ambiguous. AIRcorn (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is a dispute over whether an article should be nominated for GAN it should be resolved like any other dispute, by discussion. I think WP:BRD applies here, there is no right to nominate an article for GA. AIRcorn (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, not even a guideline. Happen I like it but common sense sometimes fits better. - Sitush (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I know. I !voted to make it policy once (and failed miserably). However, to me commonsense would suggest that if I nominated an article for GA status and someone disagreed with it we should first discuss why. I however think there is a bit of a mini war going on here and common sense may be in short supply. AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

GA bot and Review stats

I'm currently working on improving the accuracy of GA bot's review stats. Can anyone who keeps their own manual count, either post it here, or even better--post a link to a userpage where you track it? Thanks. --Chris 14:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually while I'm at it, could you also post the difference between your own count and you official count here? --Chris 15:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• My list: User:Hahc21/GA. My count: 97. Bot shows 104, I may be missing some... — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have never kept a count myself, but after getting tired of being stuck at 47 forever, I manually updated to 55 a couple weeks ago. That was probably dumb, as on your last update, those reviews seem to have been counted again. Sorry about that. Resolute 16:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• My list of reviews of nominations at WP:GAN is at User:Pyrotec/GA reviews however that does not include a few reviews I've done/doing at WP:GAR nor the 46 reviews I did at WikiProject Good articles/Sweeps: so at present it's a little over 503 reviews completed, with another 4 in progress. Pyrotec (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Elimination drive format

The new format has discouraged participation, from what I can tell. I don't think any more of the older articles are getting reviewed than they did with the old format. I think the list of only old reviews is the problem. We should have allowed anything up for review at the start of the drive. A lot of people would have jumped in and then as the drive went on they would have found only old ones left.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is a big misunderstanding. The aim of the drive is to review the oldest nominations, but reviewers are allowed to review the article they want from the beginning. — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was a RFC on the format of this drive... --Rschen7754 07:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it would have just been more participation on stuff that just got posted, completely defeating the purpose of the drive. Wizardman 12:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a bigger part of the lack of participation in this drive is that it was posted with absolutely no notice, running between two random dates, over a time period that covers (for many editors) a major holiday, school exams and prep for another major holiday. I like the idea that the drive covers only old articles (there were too many people in the last drive reviewing TV episode articles that had been up for review for a few days, or only a few hours, in some cases), but the timing on this one was poorly thought out. Dana boomer (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about waiting until January. We can pause the drive now, let everyone know it will happen in January, and make it then. — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

How about merging the Totals section in Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/November-December 2012 with Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/November-December_2012/Totals, to avoid the toing and froing. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have seen that the driver pages says "Only the articles listed in this table will count towards the backlog drive totals". I have removed that, as this is not true. The drive is aimed to review oldest nominations, but reviewers can pick up any review they like, regardless of the oldness. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Potential future approach

I posted this idea on the talk page for ΛΧΣ's RFC, but will repost here for more visibility: Would it be worthwhile to, in place of quarterly or semi-annual drives, instead target a specific backlogged queue for a brief period once a month? i.e.: If the Sports and recreation queue were to be this month's target, send notices to regular reviewers and editors heavily involved in the sports queues (as nominators or reviewers) asking them to do only a small number of reviews - say 2 or 3 in a week's time (with emphasis on oldest outstanding noms). If you can get 10 editors to average 3 reviews in that time, you could probably drop the backlog from 80 to 60 in a week. Then the next month, focus on music articles, then history, etc. The commitment is intended to be small; Just a couple reviews. It allows new reviewers to wet their feet without causing a big splash if there are problems, and regular reviewers would face only a small additional burden. My theory is that we could create a process that continually refreshes the queues while remaining lightweight enough to avoid the boom-bust cycle of reviews that seem to follow the backlog drives.

Thinking on it further, I would say this could even be done in concert with organized drives, though I am not sure how the dynamic would work. This could also tie in with the reviewer recruitment idea, as we could leave messages inviting frequent GAN submitters who don't necessarily also review when their preferred subjects come up as the queue of the month. Resolute 15:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd support this fully as an adjunct of existing drives. Implementation is another question, of course. Somehow we need to develop real incentives to get people to review, so that we have (if you can imagine a Venn diagram for a moment) one circle of people who review, another circle of people who nominate, and a hopefully large intersecting area of people who both review and nominate. An entirely optional QPQ is one idea, but people rejected even trying it out when I proposed it a while back. There has to be a better idea. --Batard0 (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of backlogs

When the Sports and Rec queue got broken out of Everyday Life, it was dropped from the top of the page to the bottom. As a result, it lost visibility and the backlog jumped from an average of 30-50 to the current 70-80. Would it be beneficial to sort the categories by either oldest unreviewed nomination or by largest backlog? It would require each section being subpaged, and therefore some modifications to the bot, but it wouldn't be hard to do, I don't think. Resolute 15:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Something should be done... the number of articles backloged in Sports and Recreation (79) is more than double that of the next highest queue (33). Albacore (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, although another idea is simply breaking up Sports & Rec into a couple sections (seems like all other main topics have multiple sections, but I don't have any specific ideas at the moment). I'm trying to hack away at S&R right now -- perhaps if a few of us go at it we'll make some progress. --Batard0 (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The backlog there seems to be more from the quantity of items added, seeing as how the oldest unreviewed is about two months old, and the top 15 are all under review. Games and recreation could be split from sports though. Wizardman 02:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a split into Games and recreation versus Sports is a fine idea. I'm sure Sports would be much bigger, but it's sort of absurd to have baseball players next to roller coaster rides. A key question, I think, would be how we treat professional wrestling; I'd be in favor of putting it under games and rec and putting ultimate fighting and its variants under sports. This has potential to be controversial, I guess. --Batard0 (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A review

Okay, it is the first time this happens and I am surprised. Albacore (talk · contribs) is removing my review of Talk:Roy Paul/GA1 arguing that I made a drive-by review, or, in other words, did not reviewed the article. I clearly left no other comments that just congratulating the nominator because i did not find any fault on his/her article. I reverted Ablacore's removal of my review, and she reverted, stating that I have a clear COI on that article, which falls into Sports and recreation, a topic i do never edit. So, as they have stated that I should ask for an uninvolved review, i do this here. I won't rever them again, my role as the standing co-ordinator of the drive tells me that it's not the right way. Therefore, I ask any uninvolved reviewer to take a look at the article. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the diff of the passed article. Albacore (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There are some grammatical issues and prose clarity and succinctness issues that could be fixed. There are also some wikilinks that could be added (like for "half-back", which I'm not sure is even a football position -- isn't it centre-back?) Having said that, I tend to nitpick on linguistic issues, and standards regarding prose may differ from reviewer to reviewer. It's up to each reviewer's judgment what passes and what doesn't. I thus don't have standing to say this review was insufficient, but in the spirit of improving the encyclopedia, I think it might be helpful if the original reviewer took another look -- perhaps there are some areas in which he could make some additional broad suggestions or give a more thorough explanation of exactly how the article satisfies all the criteria, so the nominator is at minimum informed that all the criteria have been evaluated. --Batard0 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually write a useless mass of text just for the sake of the criteria when I don't find anything that does not meet the criteria. I consider that it's a waste of time and resources to put a lot of text that can be simplified in this words: "I have read the article, and I have checked the criteria. I have no further comments to make, so it passes." I think that any nit-picky comment that is outside the GA criteria is better to be left on the user's talk page [or the article's talk page] rather than on the review page. But that's just my opinion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

(nominator of said article here) I personally find it useful when having an article reviewed to have the picky-but-not-required-for-GA comments included. I'd usually put them in a separate paragraph, with some type of preface saying "here are some extra-picky comments outside the scope of the GA criteria", along with any suggestions I have for further improvement in future.

Oh, and for Batard0, this player was active in the 1950s, when half-back was a common position. It evolved into the current notion of the centre-back, but was more a combination of that and the role of the modern midfielder. I've linked to wing-half, which while a lousy article is more appropriate than Association football positions, which concerns itself mainly with modern positions. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I was on the verge of taking this one myself, and would not have passed it without some comment. There are a few things that could be ironed out. To be honest, I personally dislike having articles passed with "this is great" comments, and prefer some suggestions for improvement. If the GA criteria are to mean anything, just saying "yes, this passes" is not really enough. For example, I'm not sure that prose issues such as "Raised in the Rhondda Valley, Paul became a miner after leaving school, but an offer of a professional contract from Swansea gave him the opportunity to leave the colliery, but his football career was then disrupted by Second World War, during which he was a physical training instructor" (rather a long, run-on sentence) should be seen as a waste of time, or "not-for-GA comments". In my book, that does not quite meet "Well written". Yes, it's not FAC, but we should expect a little more than "it's fine". (This is not to disparage the article, by the way. It is certainly not poor by a long way, but were I the reviewer would have required a small amount of polishing) Even were the article perfect, rather than a one-line review, maybe justify why it meets the criteria. On another note, even if an article is fine as a GA, I'm not sure such a cursory review is really in the spirit of an elimination drive. I believe that the wikicup judges do not allow such reviews to count as entries to that competition as, even if the article is perfect, the review does not have enough detail to warrant "reward", and is unfortunately indistinguishable from a drive-by review. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I can re-review the article and explain how I assessed it against the criteria if necessary, so that it is not considered a drive-by review. I have never considered myself the guy who rushes reviews, and rarely pass articles without even just some little comments. I guess that I should have left some nitpicky comments here [although that very long sentence, by unknown reasons, went unnoticed]. Anyways, I won't add any more reviews to my drive count. I am not interested on barnstars or anything else [my main job there is to coordinate, for god's sake >.<] — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I actually find an article where there are somehow no issues, I always make sure to add any extra bits and pieces. I am surprised as well that zero issues were found, given that I found one in the first sentence: "Roy Paul (18 April 1920 – 21 May 2002) was a footballer.." what nationality? We don't find out he's Welsh until much later. Wizardman 22:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it had his birthplace in the opening sentence when Hahc21 reviewed it, but it appears an MoS compliance edit shortly after threw the baby out with the bathwater ([3]). Oldelpaso (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I have started a re-review.... And surprisingly, I have found several issues I missed the first time o.0 I am including my nit-picky thoughts too. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Note, the nominator does not have to fix your concerns because this is already a GA. Additional comments made are extra, outside of the original GA review. Albacore (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Random question

In the nominations pages, what's the (Reviews) thing next to the nomination. It looks like this "(Reviews: 63)". I also noticed this doesn't show up for your own nominations. I just noticed this and I'm wondering what it is.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it signifies the number of articles you have reviewed. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it stands for the number of /GAn pages each user has created. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It is related to that count, but it seems that they are only counted when/if the bot updates the relevant article's talkpage's GAN template status to "onreview". Quite a few (more than 14) of my reviews were not included in my count because I undated the status and the bot did not. Pyrotec (talk)

Question

I'm in a situation where a nominator has put up an article for GA but is apparently on a wikibreak and hasn't edited since August. I've gone through the article, which is very close to meeting the GA criteria. Moreover, I've found another editor who previously contributed to the article who is willing to answer the issues and get it to the point where it meets the criteria. Is this an abuse of the GA process, or is it OK? I'm thinking it's fine, given that the original nominator isn't responding, but wanted to run it by the community as I've never come across such a situation. Also, what does the community think about me happening to review another nom's GA at the same time as the nom is reviewing my GA? There's nothing in the policies that seems to prevent this, and I know my review won't affect the other person's review and vice versa. Still, should I hold off on starting my review (which I picked up as a rescue of an improper quickfail) until the other is complete to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest? --Batard0 (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• For the first question (can the other editor help clean this up past the threshhold?) I'd say yes. I saw the same thing with Up (2009 film) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks -- seems reasonable, so I'll go ahead with it. I don't imagine the nom will complain his GA has been passed in his absence, as it only needs minor fixing. --Batard0 (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I would say yes to both. In fact I would encourage the first if the article is close to passing. AIRcorn (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Help

Um, so we have about 30+ biology articles that have been nominated in the past 24 hours. Looks like it's for a class. Not sure what the best course of action here is. Sure, we can review them in a couple months, but in the meantime that just more than cancelled out any backlog progress the past couple weeks. Wizardman 04:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I've scanned a couple briefly and they don't look in too bad shape. I have notified the birds wikiproject and we'll see what we can do. I'll try and give a heads up to some other biology editors too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Biology backlogs normally go down fairly quickly, as there are a few people who do a lot of reviewing there. I'll get one or two of them... J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll move on it this evening (EST). Choess (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fellow reviewers, please be especially vigilant with checking citations for plagiarism/close paraphrasing and to confirm alignment between text and source; I'm seeing a few problems already... Sasata (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, none of the nominators putting these articles forward has actually edited then at all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the assignment deadline is passed and we won't be seeing most of the nominators again. If this is the case, it will be pretty easy to deal with these: open a review, make a few suggestions for improvement, wait a week for no response, then close the review ... Bob's your uncle, biology backlog reduced. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Which section for Clevedon Pier

I am close to nominating Clevedon Pier but can't decide if it should go in Art and architecture or Engineering and technology. Any advice appreciated.— Rod ^talk 20:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not all that important which one is chosen: I'd review it (but not just yet) in either category. However, just having looked at it I don't think I saw any discussion of art and not much of architecture (timber decking ?). Engineering was discussed in the article - cast iron columns, collapse, etc. Pyrotec (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put it in "Transport" as the process didn't seem to allow a more general "Engineering and technology" nomination.— Rod ^talk 20:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd not spotted that change. "Computing and engineering" is its current label, but "Transport" is the next one down. Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Backlog elimination not reducing the backlog

The new format of the backlog elimination drive is not reducing the backlog.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Time to further explore a possible change of direction with a New Reviewer Recruitment and Training Drive? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that is the answer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that everyone missunderstood one of the proposals and I have reached such conclusion by now: The drive is aimed at reviewing old nominations, but all nominations can be picked up. This has costed a lot of users refraining from reviewing, believing they can't take any review they want. Technically, that proposal was just a way to formalize the goal of the backlogs, beyond reducing the number of reviews. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

But credit toward barnstars is only given for the older hooks, right? That was part of the idea. Or has that been changed? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Barnstars are awarded for all reviews, not only older. Let me explain the proposals more closely:

• Proposal 5: Drive scope: Drives will only be aimed to review the oldest nominations. Older nominations are those with more than one-to-two months on the queue. Nominations with less than a month should be excluded from the drive until all older nominations are reviewed. This proposal explicitly says that drives will only be aimed to review oldest nominations. It also says that nominations with less than a month should be excluded. I make emphasis on the word should. It is of the coordinators [and all reviewers in general] discretion to use or not to use this restriction. I wrote the word should instead of must because excluding nominations that have less than a month on the queue will work against us, and this has already been proved.
• Proposal 6 - Part 1: Drive and barnstars, Part 1: Barnstars will now be given for users who reviewed 5, 10 and 25 nominations. There will be neither leaderboard or a number-one position race, and disruptive competition for holding the highest number of reviews is discouraged. This proposal does not say that barnstars will only be awarded in the base of oldest nominations. If a user reviews 6 nominations [three of the oldest, and three new ones], they'll receive their barnstar.

The other proposals are somehow to formalize community's thoughts on drive duration and such. I hope this explanation slays all misunderstanding. So, as a conclusion: each user can pick up any review they want, be it older or newer, and it'll be counted. Of course, we are encouraging all reviewers to help review the oldest ones first, but this is not mandatory. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you have to explain this all here points up how unclear this has been from the beginning. Words like "aimed" and "should" are quite strong words, and indicate to many readers, if not most of them, that this is how the drive is planned to work. I don't understand how a drive can be aimed at the older nominations, yet given an identical reward for reviewing anything, even an article submitted the same day: it's counterintuitive, and doesn't encourage reviewing the aimed-for articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue is of balance. We cannot weight oldes noms too much because we lose participants; we cannot weight too much newer ones because we don't get the old ones reviewed. We need to encourage reviews of oldest noms but at the same time be open enough to allow newer nominations being reviewed. It's a diffitcult task. The drive is aimed at reviewing old nominations first, then the rest. How this works is difficult to see. Several users have expressed discouragement at reviewing for the drive because they believe it restricts which articles they can review, and thus they lose freedom. On the other hand, opening the scope or allowance of reviews damages the drive's goal, etc. I don't know how to properly balance this at first, and I guess that practice will help us find the right formula. So, we cannot be too demanding at first and only awarding oldest noms for the drive. We should award all but keep some awards for the oldest only. I may introduce that for the next drive. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BlueMoonset. The choice of words could use some tinkering because I also had that same impression. Oh well, too late to change that now. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully agree with this conclusion. Two quick metrics: A couple weeks ago, the number of unreviewed articles in the sports and rec queue was about 75. Today it is about 40. On average, the number of unreviewed nominations was only about 90 less than the number of total nominations overall. Right now, it is up to 110. So there is a bit of an impact. I think part of the issue is that there has also been an influx of new nominations. Also, I've yet to do any myself, though I know I should. Soon(ish). ;) Resolute 16:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree here. The total number of nominations hasn't changed, but that's because new nominations are incoming, which is natural. After all, the goal of the drive is to review the oldest nominations, not to cut the queue in half, which would be desirable, but ephemeral. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

By order of comparison with previous drives, we have now had two weeks of the drive. A quick count suggests that there have been 68 entries as part of the drive. There were 396 unreviewed nominations when the drive began; there are now 370, a reduction of 26. After 2 weeks of the June-July drive, the number of unreviewed nominations had decreased by 234. In December 2011, the unreviewed nominations had gone down by 209 after 2 weeks. The March 2011 drive: 134 fewer after 2 weeks. This was a quick check, so the numbers may not be perfect, and does not take into account fresh nominations, but presumably previous drives had similar problems. It also does not factor in any weaknesses in reviewing in previous drives. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Damn. I think that both the format changes and the timing damaged the drive. — ΛΧΣ21™ 14:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps "backlog", which in this case is the number of nominations in the list calculated once per day by a bot, is too simple a unit of measure. The change in that number on a daily basis is just a measure of the difference between what is added to WP:GAN and what is removed (i.e. passed or failed - or sometimes removed). Looking at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report at the moment, there are about 500 nominations and about 20% (approx 100) of them are being "reviewed or have been reviewed and are On Hold". Going back in Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report/Backlog archive to Sept/Oct 2012 there were about 400 nominations and between 60 and 80 were being "reviewed or had been reviewed and were On Hold", the latter number changed widely on a week by week basis. Its that small change in the about 20% being "reviewed or have been reviewed and are On Hold" that decides on whether the backlog gets bigger or smaller: backlog drives tend to increase it for a short time only. If we had "magically" completely empted the GAN list on Thursday and it had 50 new nominations on Friday and 50 more today would we be all that worried, probably not? Let's consider something similar, we ran a backlog drive and it finished today with only 100 nominations left: 33 of them were nominated in July 2012, 33 in August 2012 and 33 in September 2012, are we worried - we aught to be? Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report gives much more important information than just the backlog number: it lists individually all the articles that have been listed for more than 30 days and how long each one has been listed. Perhaps we should consider getting the bot to calculate the average/mean time of all the articles in the queue (add up for each article the number of days since nomination and divide by the number of nominations) and use that to measure progress. We aught to be more concerned about the articles that have been in the list for a long time, rather than those recently listed. I've just passed a article nominated on 12th July and I'm reviewing another nominated on 20 July 2012 and I've counted at least five nominations in the list that are older then these two (it appears to be 12 in total, five of which were not under review at the last update of Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report). Pyrotec (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the low-keyness of this backlog elim drive, anyone up for experimenting with ideas that could inform future backlog drives? One idea mentioned before by Resolute was to attack a certain section; we've made some inroads at S&R...anybody up for setting a goal of eliminating the S&R queue entirely as part of the drive, and awarding barnstars to those who help out? --Batard0 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in S&R, but I've reviewed one or two nominations in the past so I shalln't be contributing. S&R is also the longest list at 64 nominations but its closely followed by Biology and medicine at 58 nominations. Of the rest video games has 34 and there are a few more sections at 30, but the rest are much smaller. However, I don't think that WP:GAN should be selectively favouring one section, or a WikiProject. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games and there might be others that have an interest. They should be dishing out the barnstars for any such drive not WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Monthly log of new good articles

Is there a way we can store the list of passed good articles, ordered by month? I know that the bot knows when an article is passed/failed. Could we also make the bot to write passed articles in a page (by month)? — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't write bots, so I can't personally do it, but the bot already updates the list Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. That, together with its history logs, has the all information, but the list itself is only 15 records deep so as new entries are the added a similar number of old ones drop out. What is the use of this new list that you ask about? Pyrotec (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Its going to be very big and the other thing to consider whether maintenance is needed, not just adding new article. Articles can stop being GAs for various reasons, including renaming (its still a GA, but under a different name), becoming FAs, re-assessments and delisting. Pyrotec (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, mainly, I need it for the newsletter. We have a section that is the "good articles of the month" and we list there all the articles that were promoted during the previous month... — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Last month's, November's, can be viewed but not all that easily at here but you need to set it to 250 lines. A bot would be easier, but I'm not sure that you need 10 years' worth (wikipedia is 11 years old, GA I suspect is somewhat younger). Pyrotec (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha I already did it manually. I't was easier than I thought. 157 articles were promoted, and I have listed them now. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There's two, possibly more, missing from the list. I passed Talk:Itchen Navigation/GA1 on 7th and Talk:Military of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth/GA1 on 27th. Pyrotec (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I will add them. I added all the ones the bot reported at WP:GAN, watching the history for november. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. The bot is a bit strange and I suspect undocumented: my review count was not getting updated and it was eventually discovered that the problems were caused by me manually setting the status on the article's talkpage to "=onreview". The creation of the /GA1 page did some actions and the setting of the status flag did others. I also found that you can't manually correct some lists the bot just uncorrects them next time round. Pyrotec (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Were these ever GA reviewed?

Witching Culture and Enchanted Feminism both are classed as GA, but i dont think they were reviewed. I am neutral on whether they are GA, having very little experience gauging such articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No User:Midnightblueowl, who is the biggest contributor to both articles, made them GA's on 30 December 2011 just on the talkpage. To be more precise, that editor was the only contributor at the time the two articles were self-promoted to GA, which occurred on the day that they were created. I've reclassified them as B and C, respectively. Midnightblue, since then, has participated at GAN both as a contributor and a reviewer. Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk)

[4] These were classed GA in the project templates. That's not at all the same thing as "making them GAs", and, indeed, they were not listed at WP:GA nor recorded in ArticleHistory. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to a question as to whether they were reviewed, I stated "made them GA's on 30 December 2011 just on the talkpage", that should be plural, so I regraded them. To nitnip: they were not nominated at GAN, not reviewed, the GA star was not added to the articles, they were not listed at GA and no {{articlehistory}} was created for each. The editor just classed then as GA for certain wikiprojects on the respective talkpage. At no point do I make the claim that they were listed at WP:GA, you arrived at that point by selectively misquoting my words. Pyrotec (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

And what I'm saying is that project-GA-ratings are not "GA-class" ratings in the WP:GA sense. The last time this sort of discussion happened that I recall, projects were allowed to use the GA rating within their projects independent of WP:GA, if they wanted. I also say that independent of whether these particular articles would meet the relevant project's GA-class criteria, which is really up to the project. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm a member of several WP and in those GA-class is not used as a project assessment unless the article is a GA, ditto FA. I went to Wikipedia:WikiProject Neopaganism/Assessment#Instructions and to Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Assessment#Instructions and the instructions make it clear that an article has to gain GA before it can be rated by the project as GA. I could go to all the WPs for which both articles were assessed as project GAs just to make the point, but I won't do so. I take your point about the "difference", but editor's assessing their own articles as project GAs on the day the articles were created, after 21 edits for one article and two for the other, makes a mockery of GA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what projects use GA as a project rating independent of WP:GA, or for that matter if any do. But my recollection is that they could, if they wanted. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Where has this discussion taken place and a consensus been reached Gimmetoo? Like Pyrotec, I've never seen any project awarding its own GA status, and as he says, such a thing would make a mockery of the GA branding so to speak. Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above. The Start-A class markings are project-specific, but GA/FA/FL are specifically audited by a consistent criteria and through single venues that are not project specific in the slightest. There seems to be some misunderstanding of how the assessments work at these projects. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree too. I understand that each project may have an specific vision of what could be a good article on their standards, but that cannot override GAN, by any means. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Good articles has the same criteria for each WikiProject, and needs to be reviewed by one non-involved reviewer. It is different from A-Class, which seems to be based on each seperate WikiProject, but this is different. Same goes for featured articles and lists. You can't just assign an article as good yourself. TBrandley 20:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that this was an honest error. The project ratings were copied across from the talkpage of another article that was a (genuine) GA and not adjusted. Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk)

UBS

I came across this as well, because in my work on Credit Suisse I used their largest competitor UBS as an example, since it is GA rated. However, it seems to me that the reviewer simultaneously said it does not meet the GA criteria "Some entire paragraphs are not cited," while also approving it (as a society article instead of business, which is odd). But I just took it for granted that different reviewers have drastically different standards.

One thing I've gotten a lot of feedback on so far when I ask if an article is GA-ready is the length of image captions. The UBS article has a 13-line image caption. So I'm still sort of trying to find out if GA just means decent (UBS is a pretty decent article) or exceptional or how high the bar is. Corporate 20:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to comment here on a nomination still under review, nor am I going to evaluate the GA-ness (a horrible word) of a nomination against an existing GA. The requirement is to review against WP:WIAGA not against personal standards and certainly not against other articles (which may or may not be GAs). The image caption requirement in WP:WIAGA is clause 6(b) which calls up Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions.

As you say above, UBS is listed as a GA, its one of 79 GAs listed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies as being of interest to them. Go to Category:GA-Class company articles and check them out yourself. That will give a flavour of what has happened. Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk)

Woops! Sorry! Having checked, I seem to have made some errors in what I thought was being stated above. Credit Suisse has been nominated at WP:GAN, but it is not under review.

The review of UBS is a complete mess. The review Talk:UBS/GA1 was opened by JonCatalán at 16:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC) and the article was made a GA three minutes later here using the form of words given above in "quotes" by Corporate. It full he wrote: While I think that this makes the cut, I have a couple of comments: Some entire paragraphs are not cited. These paragraphs mention specific figures, and while nobody may necessarily believe these figures to be controversial, they should probably be cited anyways. The usual rule of thumb is a citation per paragraph as the bare minimum. Has you or anybody discussed the length of the article? Admittedly, I have worked on long articles as well, but never anything this long (my longest article is probably around 87kB, for comparison).. However, most of the comments on the /GA1 were made by an IP editor and SSZ after the article had been made a GA see here. This seems to be a drive by review. There is no evidence in the review that the article was reviewed in full against WP:WIAGA. However, some two years later, having had a quick look at the article it has the "look of a GA". That is not an official assessment. Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk)

I would not use UBS as an example of a Good article. In my opinion it doesn't meet the Good standards in its current state and will probably have to be reassessed. The trouble is that the Good article standards are assessed by a single editor so there is some individual interpretation and some reviewers do not strictly enforce the criteria or will add their own. Also after the article has been assessed it may change (UBS looked much more like a Good article in September 2010[5]). If you want to compare to other Good articles, I would do so with more than one current GA. As to your question GA really just means decent, but they must at a minimum meet the standards at WP:GACR. Captions should comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, which does mention that they should be succinct. Of course that would be decided on a case-by-case basis, but 13 lines should raise some questions from a reviewer. AIRcorn (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Inquery: In regards to sister pages' quality

I'm currently writing an article, Allessandro Liberati, which is unofficially my baby.

One problem I run into, though, is the recognition of sister biographies connected to my page. In specific, Jules Levy (musician of similar rank to Liberati). Unfortunately, the quality and length of some of the connected articles are start-to-stub, and while I'm proofing it for good article status, and hopefully someday FA status, my goal, I am concerned that the quality of those in question could affect the desired outcome.

Is this true?

---Saw1998 (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Your article will be assessed on its own merits, not on the merits of articles it links to. Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Linked articles will have no effect on rating the quality of the article in question. The only practical implication is that researching one topic leads to another topic, which leads to cleaning up other articles, which leads to more research, which leads to more cleanup... Chris857 (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I suppose researching Jules Levy should be next, and likely from there I will find another 19th century cornetist which I will obsess over for... ever. ---Saw1998 (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

10 GANs from July

The backlog from the back end is thankfully starting to shrink, but we still have 10 GA noms from July (was nine yesterday but had to put one back in the queue). If we can knock these out in the next couple days then that should help a great deal. Granted, some of what's left will require tough reviews. Wizardman 23:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm stuck on Christina Aguilera but that's going to take at least another week to sort out as it had several dead links and BLP issues. I think the fact three editors are on top of the fixes are what's keeping me going with it. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to apologize in advance to whoever gets my own article in that pile, I'm new GA, and I'm sure my first attempt is going to be a "tough review". But that's how we learn. *grin* Seriously, thanks in advance, --j⚛e decker^talk 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We're down to seven now. Not bad but let's see if we can cut this in half by weekend's end. Wizardman 00:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Adam Newman

Hello. I have nominated the article Adam Newman for GA and I was wondering if there was anyone interested in reviewing it. Please let me know. Regards, Creativity97 00:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Prospective reviewer

Hey guys. I've nominated articles for GA status before in the past, and I've always wanted to do my part in reviewing. However, I've always held back because I wasn't sure if I'd do a good job reviewing, fearing I'd be either too tough or too lax in applying GA standards. Could any seasoned reviewers offer me any advice and encouragement? Ltwin (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best thing to do would be to find an article on a subject you're interested in or knowledgeable about, but have never touched before, do a review following the GA guidelines as closely as possible, then ask for a second opinion. I did it the first time I reviewed an article and got comments from two more experienced reviewers. It's easier to get feedback on your work than discuss things abstractly, since every review is different. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Jump in. There is a huge list of articles to be reviewed. You learn by taking part. You'll make mistakes - no big deal. You'll learn from the experience, and you'll get better. The good thing about GA is that if you fail an article, it can be renominated straight away so someone else can look at it. And if you pass an article it can be reassessed straight away. So, in a sense, you can't go wrong. However, if you do ten in a row which are all renominated or reassessed, then questions will be asked! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Extending the drive

Can we extend the drive until December 31, 2012? I know this seems rather unusual, but I consider that the few days extra are not a bad idea. Anyone's thoughts about this? — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd just let it end. It never really got off the ground after coming out of nowhere. Wizardman 03:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. That was exactly what I was thinking... Next time I should better think the publicity part of the drive, and the timing. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, though at this point I'm about ready to give up on the review process entirely; no one wants to review anymore yet more people are nomming stuff than ever. Stuff waits five months and no one seems to give a damn. Wizardman 03:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, that's true. I'm low on reviews but mostly because I was hard on content for FAC. I hope to be reviewing a lot again by January. Also, seems like the whole project is living a meltdown. PR is almost inactive, and both FAC and FLC are urgently needing reviewers. GAN is the one showing the most life by now, even when we are almost at our lowest. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to be thinking about why it is that fewer and fewer editors are willing to review here or at PR and FAC. Might it have something to do with the fact that reviewing is a thankless task that makes you no friends? Malleus Fatuorum 07:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This drive failed because it was not properly planned. Support ending it so we can start preparing the next one, hopefully with increased emphasis on new reviewer recruitment and training. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Many editors feel there is a culture here that is seperate from the main project. That many reviews are rubberstamped and others are being held to an almost FA standard at times. I myself have had a bad experiance (not the time I thought I didn't have a substantial contribution to the Paul Ryan article to review it. I didn't see that as a bad experiance but I am sure editors here probably did) envolving editors not happy that I did not "list" the article and all that happened was it was re-nominated and rubberstamped and the nom editor ended up going to arbcom and blocked/banned for copyright and other issues. I also had an editor very upset that the article had work that needed to be done before the GA listing and just waited until I declined the listing, renominated it and let another editor list it without the work. I am still hoping the GA project can work out the kinks and issues and perhaps work closer with other Wikiprojects to increase reviews, but it seems that is asking a lot. Not sure what else to do but wait and only do occasional reviews.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"Many editors"? Really? Malleus Fatuorum 07:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, many editors have expressed their confusion over how reviews are done and expressed concern over a culture or clique over the years that I have been on Wikipedia, but you need not worry, they don't have pitchforks and torches. They just work elsewhere. It really is a thankless job, but isn't most of Wikipedia. I don't work here for money, a pat on the back or a thank you. I do it because I love it and enjoy it. Perhaps what I, myself, can add to this discussion is just what I alone feel, that GA reviews are not enjoyable anymore and can actually be very difficult and frustrating. I actually enjoy helping at DR/N and other noticeboards than to deal with the difficulties here.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not worried in the slightest, don't you worry about that. Malleus Fatuorum 07:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Too late Malleus. This has concerned me for some years now. I should worry about it just as I would any other portion or part of the project. It just isn't a priority for me at the moment but I do take an interest in it.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood me. Malleus Fatuorum 08:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth going through and finding an exemplary example of a GA review, and using that as an example for newcomers to the process to use as a guide. I think we just have to encourage newcomers to be bold and just give it a go, but make sure there are mentors around (Hach21 has made himself available for mentoring new GA reviewers in the past) so that it doesn't compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Anyone caught rubber stamping, frankly, is violating pillar number 5 by making the process (getting a barnstar, green blob, point, whatever) more important than the spirit of the process (making an article good quality so the reader can trust its worth). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think that I'm going to have a go at reviewing Ernest Lucas Guest. I've no idea if I'll make a hash of it or not but others have put time into reviewing some of my stuff in the past & so I guess that I should put something back. I'm unlikely to become a regular - maybe three or four in a year - but owt is better than nowt. If anyone wants to keep a general eye on proceedings then please do, and I'll be letting the nom know that this is my first attempt. I'll leave off tagging as under review for a few hours, just in case anyone here might have objections to my taking this leap into the unknown. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't see why anyone might object, but if you like I'll keep a look over your shoulder. Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• So, what we do with the drive? Do we wait until Dec. 17 or shut it down now? I can start proper work and planification for the next drive this month. Also, I am available to mentor any user interested in getting started reviewing nominations and, as I said before, I like the idea of a recruitment system. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not just let this one run its course? Is it doing any active harm at the moment that means it needs to stop? And maybe slow down before planning the next one; what is the rush? It would be nice to have some new thoughts and ideas before we gallop into another drive that falls flat. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was just asking. It is not doing active harm. Actually, the drive is close to doing nothing; As far as I can see, only one or two reviews are added each day, at most, so it's like we are not running a drive at all. Also, the next drive won't happen until at least April or May, I guess. After what happened with this one, I can bet people will be more receptive to new ideas. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I would just let it finish. As to its success before the drive there were 211 articles that had not received a review in 30 days and 127 had not received a review in 60 days (taken from this revision). As of now (with a week remaining) there are 171 articles that have not received a review in 30 days and 73 have waited 60 days. I would say that it has lead to an improvement, especially considering the numbers were steadily increasing (69 had been waiting two months on 17 September, 103 on 17 October). It is a lot more low key than the previous drive (for comparison at the end 23 articles were remaining that had not been reviewed for 60 days), but (touch wood) there have been no complaints brought up yet about poor reviewing and hopefully there is less burnout at the end of this one. AIRcorn (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Those are good points. Poor reviews are gone thanks to the new direction the drive has taken. And the burnour is reduced too. Maybe i just was a bit skeptical about the drive, considering that the last one had 1 article reviewed per hour. I think we should keep focusing on old nominations first, although still having space for newer reviews. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing a good article

For the firdt time I'm reviewing an good article nomination. Can anyone tell me what should I do at the first step?--Pratyya ^{(have a chat?)} 07:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Read the article. Malleus Fatuorum 08:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You will want to read this at some point too. It tells you what you should look for in the article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Its actually more than that. It is the criteria that the nomination should be assessed against. In effect the reviewer on passing a nomination is stating that the article is to be regarded as complying with these requirements (conversely, if the article was not "passed" it is to be considered that it did not comply). Pyrotec (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Without wishing to blow my own trumpet and jump up and down shouting "Look at me! Look at me" like the Donkey in Shrek, I think Talk:A1 road in London/GA3 appears to be considered a good review by consensus. Most important things are checking the references are correct and say what the article cites them to. No point having a really well formatted article that contains stuff that's factually wrong.--Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

With a comment such as that, I have to reply. So far, I've never expressed any opinion on that review and I was previously unaware of it so I don't regard myself as being in such a consensus. I've now looked at it I have reservations about putting it forward as a "good review by consensus". It's certainly not a typical review: its a review of a topic by what appears to be a subject-matter expert. Seldom/Never have I read a GA review where the reviewer states that information can be found in a particular (named) file in (the UK's) The National Archives and I just happen to have a camera image of it. There are very many good points. It is a thorough and genuinely helpful review where the reviewer carefully checks the references and sources and comments upon them; is continually making efforts to improve the article for the benefit of wikipedia; and in many instances the reviewer made suggestions on how the article might be improved, but did not seek to impose these views. There did not there appear to be any conflict of interest in so far as the reviewer did not appear to contributed to the article prior to the review. If this had been a non-roads topic, I probably would not have commented here. My only concern is in respect of subject-matter-expert reviews, which this is. The subject-matter-expert has a "difficult line to follow", he/she probably has a "picture" of a perfect article and probably has a vested interest in getting the article up to GA (or higher) and it is these that potentially give rise to a conflict of interest. One might argue that it would/could have better for the subject-matter-expert to let some uninvolved reviewer do the reviewer and help improve the article, if required. I certainly have no concerns about the review nor about the article being awarded GA, but I certainly don't believe that this review should be promoted as "good review by consensus". The same editor may well have other reviews that could serve as an example of model good-review, but I certainly don't think that subject-matter-expert reviews should be promoted in this way. I'm sorry, but that is my view. Pyrotec (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Pyrotec, are you suggesting that subject-matter experts should not be reviewing for GA in an ideal world? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that reviews produced by subject-matter-experts in that same topic should be produced as examples of model reviews. I'd go further, since every nomination is different I don't think there should be a model review. That review (Talk:A1 road in London/GA3) was appropriate for A1 road in London but is it equally applicable for California State Route 282, which also happens to be a road article and was assessed as a GA quite recently? For a start the A1 road "model review" is longer than the State Route article. Pyrotec (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and inclined to agree in that case. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's a single "most important thing"; each of the GA criteria are important and need to be checked against. Malleus Fatuorum 12:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's right, if you assume everyone reviews GA candidates 100% correctly without ballsing anything up. But that's not the real world, so instead, you have to look at what the damage is. Two MOS issues can be fixed by thousands of people in minutes. However, a length paragraph cited to sources that turn out to be unreliable POV ag--Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)endas that means the article is dangerously violating WP:NPOV, that's not so good. People get angry about that the way they just can't do about a space before the ref tag instead of after it. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is aimed at me. I just don't think Talk:A1 road in London/GA3 should be presented a "model review" for the reasons I've given above, but its certainly fit for its purpose. I looked at Talk:Christina Aguilera/GA2, which failed, which is as far as I went. Propose that, if you wish, its certainly a popular topic for reviewing by some of the newer editors/reviewers, I'll not raise any objections. Pyrotec (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine - whichever review the community decides is best is the one we should go for. My reply was more toward Malleus suggesting the GA criteria were all equal. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The GA criteria are all equal, in the sense that an article must meet each of them. And to be frank I don't consider your example review to be in any way a model of good practice. Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should showcase any particular review as a model one. While the criteria we look for may be the same different articles may best be dealt with using different approaches. For example if the article fails the broadness criteria then it is not much point provide an in depth review of the prose or references until that is fixed up. Also there is a wide range of approaches taken from even the most experienced GA reviewers (in terms of how many edits they are willing to do to an article, their use of lists/tables, interpretation of various criteria, advice provided beyond the criteria and so on). As long as the criteria are met in the end they are all Good reviews and I doubt we could come to an agreement on which one is a model review. AIRcorn (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

@Pratyya. My advice is if you have not already chosen an article choose one in a topic area you are familiar with, but which has a relatively narrow focus. For example if you are interested in music I would review a song article rather than one on a band or genre. Generally it is much easier to judge the broadness criteria of these article and they are usually shorter meaning less references to check. I would read the criteria first so you know what to look for (Pyrotec is right, it is more important than I let on earlier). Then read the article and think of any reasons it might not meet the criteria. Open the review page and write comments about what you think the problems might be with the article. Let the person who nominated it know that you have started the review. If you want it would probably be a good idea to come back here and link to the review you have just started. That way some more experienced editors can look over it for you and provide advice. There are a few essays that provide more advice on GA reviewing at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. AIRcorn (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

This article is changing too quickly, and there's disagreement about how to resolve the issues I've already raised on the GA review, with some back and forth reverts with two users. It's not an all out edit war, but I think it's right on the edge of it. Consequently I've mentioned the possibility of quickfailing. Can I get a second opinion on how to proceed? Shall I just plough on finding issues, or should I write this one off as a bad job? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

DeadSend4 (talk · contribs) appears to have only ever edited the Christina Aguilera article. In his additions, he appears to be re-adding previously removed content, that was removed for a reason. That user has reinstated rumors and added in some unsourced information, as well as dead links. I really couldn't tell you how to proceed, but I think that it should be failed due to the current status of the article. I made one revert earlier today, to this revision, which seems very good. The current? Not so much. I assumed the user who nominated the article would set the user straight, but that hasn't happened yet. I'd say maybe wait a bit to see what happens. Statυs (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If it is changing so much that you are struggling to keep track of the changes and it is not just vandalism or disruptive editing then I think you should fail it on stability grounds. When the parties come to some agreement on the state of the article it can be renominated. It is not really your job to adjudicate a content dispute. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I concur. But it appears to be disruptive editing by a fan of Ms. Aguilera to me. Statυs (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The impression I get from DeadSend4 is he thinks some of the dead links can just be fixed rather than the content deleted. Still, as Aircorn says, it's not really my job to adjudicate this. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If you wish, you can fail it on the account of instability. That is perfectly reasonable. It's just a headache, really. Statυs (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

DeadSends is right, the correct way to deal with deadlinks is to first try and replace them, they should only be removed as a last resort. If the information they are citing doesn't fall under 2b it is not a major concern for GA anyway (note there is some leeway in what falls under 2b and there are still close paraphrasing checks needed for at least some sources). Also if the links are to a print source like a magazine, then the link is only a convenience and not really necessary either. It is up to Ritchie whether he wants to continue the review or not, but I think he has a case for failing it due to stability issues. AIRcorn (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if I hadn't quickfailed it when I did, I certainly would have done when the article deteriorated into a bona fide edit war :-( --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A review

For personal issues, I won't be able to review Bob Lemon. I took the article for review some time ago but couldn't do it. I'd like to know if anyone is willing to review it instead of me. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I could, but since Lemon's an article that's part of my very long-term project, I'd rather not be the one doing the review. If no one else steps up I'll do it though. Wizardman 15:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was about to ask you. I am solving some personal issues and I may resume reviewing articles in January. If it's still there by then, I may take it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of quickfail

Talk:Doom (video game)/GA1 & User talk:Sasata#"quickfail criteria". So, what now, in such a case? --Niemti (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

How about ensuring the sourcing is up to par and renominating? Sasata (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sasata's 100% right to quickfail. I would have done the same. There's a lot of unsourced stuff in the article that should be. Wizardman 00:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you point me out to quickfail criteria of "a lot of unsourced stuff in the article that should be"? A number, please (1-6). I'll check. --Niemti (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No number for this exactly, but I concur that it is a good fail. If more editors did this then it would help the backlog immensely. AIRcorn (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, technically #2 in general, but 2b to be specific. And coming from the VG project, Doom, being one of the key games that launched the FPS genre, having only 43 references seems extremely thin (I realize much of that goes to the FPS article, but still...) Gameplay needs sourcing, "Engine" needs sourcing , "WADs" needs sourcing, and so on. Basically, there's a minimum expectation that outside of the plot, you should have at least one cite per paragraph, even if subsequent paragraphs reuse the same reference. --MASEM (t) 00:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And whatever 2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.[3] has to do with anything? (There's no "2b".) The articles for these things are Development of Doom, Doom engine, Official versions of Doom and Doom WAD. As of gameplay - do you want me to source everything with "Doom manual" or something like that? (Still nothing to do with any quickfail criteria at all.) --Niemti (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I was using WP:WIAGA's numbers. And even though you have separate articles there, you should still have references from those in the main article (consider that some people will be reading this statically without ability to follow links, ergo critical references should be in the main article as well). Gameplay can be sourced from the manual but if you can use third-party sources, that would be better. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 2b comes from Wikipedia:Good article criteria, the minimum bar a GA is going to have to meet. To quote, "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines". Bolding is mine and is the part which is relevant to this discussion. It's something that could be given in a held review but with the scope involved it's probably best to fail for now given the length of time fixing it seems likely to take. As for the material being sourced in another article, that isn't enough; if it is sourced there, just re-use the sources in the parent article. GRAPPLE X 00:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And the quickfail criteria, all 6 of them, are all well defined and clear. Maybe you (all of you) first read them, instead of coming up with some fantasy things like "2b" or "a minimum expectation", all of which is irrevelant to quickfailing (not to even mention saying that breaking the rules and quickfail abuse is something "more editors" should do). And no, I don't think the gameplay stuff about a well-known game from 1993 is "likely to be challenged". --Niemti (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hold on. If an article is quickfailed, it is failed. I mean, there is no need to meet any of the 6 quickfail criteria to quickly fail an article, which is what Sasata did. What I recommend is to do the recommendations stated above and, after everything have been fixed, renominate. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong, and Sasata even specifically linked to the quickfail criteria while writing "This article meets the quickfail criteria for GAN" (which is obviously false).[6] --Niemti (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that the six reasons to quickfail are not fully inclusive (that is, there may be others), this is an invalid argument. --MASEM (t) 01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen any discussion that says this is not fully inclusive. We can't just make up our own quickfail criteria when we see an article we don't like. I actually think that Sasata should have just failed it linking 2b and not gone into the quickfail criteria. Either way the article is not up to Good standards and needs to be fixed and renominated. AIRcorn (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As of matter of fact, I don't think there was much of "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" there. And for a good reason - this article is 11 years old, and there were very few things that were challenged. And by "very few", I mean 1. And by "1", I mean the stuff that I myself got removed, and very recently so, but only to someone else put it back when I wasn't looking. And even this cn-spam from one of people here (just to make a point) was for some rather very obvious things, with all the relevant info contained in the linked articles. So, not really. But anyway, it wasn't about that. --Niemti (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Per instructions on GAN: "Before reading the article in detail, check it for immediate problems. If you believe a detailed review is premature, add your reasons to the review page and use the fail process; otherwise continue with the next steps." That means that while a GAN may not explicitly pass the 6 quickfail messages, a review still has a right to tag it quickfail. The reasoning, however, needs to be in line with other quickfail reasons. EG if the qf was put down because "I don't like Doom as a game, Halo 4ever duuzde!", yea, that would be reversed pretty darn fast. But stating that much of the article is unsourced and expressing doubt it can be brought to standards in the time of a GA review is completely fair. --MASEM (t) 01:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You still simply don't (can't?) understand what "quickfail" means. But Sasata knew, as he even linked to the quickfail criteria, he just decided to use point 7 - his own and imaginary. --Niemti (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Use common sense (and watch the NPA). If I submit a 4000 word article for GA with all of one citation, it doesn't technically fail per QF #1, but it is so far out of line of WIAGA#2b that it should not even be considered in that state - in otherwords, quickfailed even if not by an exact point. While the state of Doom at the start of this convo was certainly better than only having one cite, Sasate used their judgement to consider that the gap between it and WIAGA#2b was too far to surmount in a GAN review period and quickfailed it as per allowance of GA process. All you have to do is add the requested citations and renominate it; its not like it never can be a GA. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Strawman. And no, it can't be quickfailed (literally speaking) - it can be just failed. --Niemti (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And these criteria (and the procedure) are as follows:

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.)
4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
6. The article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations

If the article has any of the above problems, it may be premature to provide a detailed review, in which case you can "quickfail" the nomination in accordance with step two of the GAN guidelines, as long as you explain this clearly on the review page. They most commonly apply when the nominator is inexperienced or is not a regular editor of the article. If you "quick-fail" an article according to the above criteria, leave a short note explaining the major problems and inform the nominator.

Even if an article can be "quick-failed" according to the above criteria, reviewers could also:

1. Leave a short note explaining the major problems, but without officially closing the review until the editors at the article have had a few days to respond to your concerns. You may find that they are interested in significantly improving the article.
2. Provide a detailed review, as more specific information will help future editors improve the article to meet all of the Good article criteria, but close the review as "not listed".
3. Withdraw from the review, and let another reviewer decide how to handle it.

And now you know. You're welcome. --Niemti (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Technically there is not a quickfail criteria for poor referencing. However, Sasata could have just as easily classed it as a fail with out holding, which would have been more than justified and resulted in much the same outcome. Maybe it is time to look at loosening the definitions of some of the quickfail criteria. For example #1 could be changed from "The article completely lacks reliable sources" to "The article is severely lacking reliable sources". AIRcorn (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, he/she could not do it "just as easily". And it's still quickfail misuse/abuse (and at least some of you apparently didn't even know of the criteria). Also, "severely" is something abstract/subjecive. --Niemti (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If I was reviewing this article I would not have linked to the quickfail criteria and instead placed a {{GAList}} template on the review page and simply failed the referencing criteria with a short note or just written something along the lines of how it failed 2b. Either way I would not have held the article and just failed under point 3 in "how to review an article" on this page Read the whole article, and decide whether it should pass or fail based on the Good article criteria. Just because it didn't technically meet the quickfail criteria doesn't mean that we have to hold an article we think is a long way from GA standard. And seriously, everyone commenting here has conducted many more GA reviews than you so I think they know the criteria. BTW most of the criteria are subjective ("well written" is very subjective, not to mention "the topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way") and IMO is one of the strengths of GA reviewing when compared to say DYK which has completely objective criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And then there would not be a quickfail misuse (or abuse, or whatever), and there would not be this thread. But it was, and so there is. And the moral of the story? Everyone learn the quickfail criteria (and it's not like they're hard), and don't when you can't. Amen. --Niemti (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Importantly, if the reviewer believes that the improvements could not be made in a reasonable time for a GAN review to be opened, the quickfail is reason. For example if you were only missing Gameplay section references, I would anticipate that Sasata would have left the review opened and asked for those to be added - something that should be easy to do in a few days. But with as many unreferenced paragraphs, filling those all in is not of the same scope. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You still don't understand. --Niemti (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. What are you pursuing here? Why do you use the word "misuse"? Quickfail is not a right like rollback or editinterface to be misused. Could you please explain which is the outcome your are desiring to see from this discussion? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it was a blatant misuse/abuse. Also I see a 'citation needed' spam has just arrived even for as absolutely obvious things as "as of 2012, Doom 4 is still in development", I guess it was one of those claims that were "likely to be challenged". --Niemti (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"Absolutely obvious things"? If you couldn't provide a source from GameSpot, GameInformer or IGN (to make examples) stating that the game is indeed in development, then that fact should be removed. I think you have a misconception of what is likely to be challenged and what is not. That the game is named Doom 4 and developed by id Software is not to be challenged, but that it's still in development, or any other claim related to time (just to make another example) is likely to be challenged. Finally, I insist, your misuse of the word "misuse" confuses me. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. The game was even linked, right there, and no, it's not something "likely to be challenged". It was only challenged because one of users reading this thread decided to make a point. --Niemti (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of "challenged, or likely to be challenged". Apathy or low article traffic is often a cause of a lack of challenge. Chris857 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

has been viewed 245260 times in the last 90 days. This article ranked 6693 in traffic on en.wiki.x.io I began editing it in June, when it looked like that: [7] - note the complete lack of anything being challenged. --Niemti (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it hasn't been challenged in the last 5 million views doesn't mean it can't be challenged in the future. Remember this rule: If something is challenged, go ahead and add a reference. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It means it's not likely. You know, as in "likely to be challenged". --Niemti (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Niemti, by practice I source EVERYTHING and I do mean that. Every single line of my articles are sourced to exactly where I got the information from. I leave nothing to chance or objection, more so because if anything IS a problem or anyone wants to check, the answer is immediate, obvious and easily found. You may call it overkill, but that is exactly what I aim to do on my articles. I'll basically bludgeon the article with inline citations to my reliable sources. One page has more then 150 inline citations and I've got literally another 400 reliable sources, unused, which I am still plowing through in preparations for moving to GA. If you source everything then you won't need to worry about it being challenged. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer options

Leaving behind the merits of the above case it is obvious that there is some confusion about quick failing, failing and holding that needs to be sorted out. Here is my understanding of the reviewers options:

• If an article meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Quickfails it can be failed with a simple reference to the quickfail number. Nothing more is needed from the reviewer except a short explanation that explains how it fails (which could simple be a repetition of the criteria)
• If an article fails the standard criteria to such an extent that the reviewer doesn't think it can be fixed in a reasonably time they can fail the article without placing it on hold. They should explain how it fails the criteria and have at least read enough of the article to be confident that it does fail this criteria. They are under no obligation to provide a detailed review of the other criteria.
• If the article is not up to Good standard, but the reviewer thinks it can get to the required standard in a reasonable amount of time they should list the issues and then allow time for the nominator to address there concerns. Before passing the article they should make sure that it meets all the criteria.
• If the reviewer thinks the article meets the criteria they can pass the article without placing it on hold. They may leave further comments if they wish.

If this is correct, could we explain it better on some of the pages and guides. AIRcorn (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely my take on it. I "quick failed" a GAN today, but it was really the second case above, where the article was too far from the requirements to pass any time soon, but not technically a "quick" fail. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is how I have always understood the process. GRAPPLE X 03:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Me too. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just done this and got flak about it. Though it was always as I thought it to be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You didn't really. You failed it according to the second bullet point, but you referenced the first one. AIRcorn (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well looking at that review, the reviewer stated at the end that it had clean up tags and that it failed on #3 (of Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles) for that reason. The review had earlier been put On Hold so the reviewer had clearly got beyond the "First things to look for stage" and was into the main reviewing stage. The nomination never had any clean up tags, the reviewer added them during the review and then failed the article for having tags. That not how reviewers should behave, it should be an impartial review. Its a bit like police planting drugs on people and then charging them with possession. Pyrotec (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It aught to be clear, or perhaps it aught to be spelled out clearly, the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles guidance is based on a series of steps or cycles. The first step in Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#How to review a Good article nomination is to look for those problems listed above by --Niemti and make a decision as to whether a quickfail is appropriate. If it is, you quick fail it, give reasons against the quickfail criteria and don't bother with the review. After that, you review it against the criteria for WP:WIAGA and pass or fail it against them. ChrisGualtieri was clearly at the main review stage and had a very strong case for failing it against WP:WIAGA clause 2(b). Looking at these edits the Friedrich Eckenfelder article is clearly non-compliant and to be frank a "fail" against WP:WIAGA clause 2(b) would been entirely appropriate and non-controversial. It is the backtracking into the first stage of the reviewing process and the addition of tags and then failing on the quickfail criteria #3, for the presence of flags added by the reviewer, that became controversial. Guidance in dealing with disputes in given in Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Dealing with disputes. The nominator was clearly asking for a second opinion, the reviewer does not have to grant it but could well receive criticism if it is refused, as it was in that review. The reviewer is not always not a popular figure, especially when a nomination is failed and/or proper review processes are not followed. The guidance is there to minimise these problems. Pyrotec (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Having just looked again at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, it appeared on my watchlist just now as an editor made some changes, Aircorn made some "improvements" as long ago as May 2012 here which added the quickfail criteria without much in the way of explanation. It is clear from Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, as I've said above, that a "quickfail" is an appropriate response in certain situations at the end of the First things to look for stage stage instead of doing the full review; and that if a "quickfail" is not appropriate then, the nomination is reviewed against the criteria (in WP:WIAGA); and this is explained in Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Those changes to Wikipedia:Good article criteria, made in good faith, don't appear to have been carefully thought through if they are being used in the manner that they were used in the Friedrich Eckenfelder review; and they have not been agreed by this project. Based on that review: you do the initial checks and rule out a "quickfail", find some faults, get some corrective actions done, find some more faults, put a flag on the article and then "quickfail" it. This is clearly nonsense and the criteria should not be written in a manner that encourages reviewers to do it this way. If an article is not "quickfailed" at the First things to look for stage stage, it should be reviewed and sentenced against WP:WIAGA - and if it is "failed", then failed against the criteria of WP:WIAGA. That is the was it was in WP:WIAGA prior to the May 2012 edits and that is the way that WP:WIAGA must be brought back to. Pyrotec (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't completely out of the blue (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 16#Quickfailing). I left an explanation there. It has stood for over 6 months with only minor modifications and reviewers were misinterpreting the criteria before the change, so I don't think we can say it is a major cause of confusion after just two recent cases (one of which was by a seasoned reviewer and in both instances there is strong agreement here that they should have been failed anyway). I don't think it encourages reviewing in the way you have described either, but it can certainly be improved. The main issue from above seems to be that reviewers think they can add the clean-up banners and then quickfail. Hopefully this edit fixes that. AIRcorn (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I remember the discussions here (probably archived now) and I was in broad agreement with them so it was not, as you rightly say, "out of the blue". But I never looked at the changed document. Having now done so, there is what I call reviewing "proper" and "quickview" added on without the relevant explanation that appears in the guidance at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#How to review an article and that might explain the actions of one reviewer. Those three new words that you propose to add appear to address/satisfy my concerns. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay I will look at trying to update the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles guideline so it explains these options better, maybe even presenting them like the above bullet list. I think the steps set out at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#How to review an article already cover this, but someone else may think of better wording. My only suggestions would be to change Provide a detailed review of the article on the review page to Provide a review of the article on the review page detailing what criteria it does not meet. I would also move all the lists, tables and notices to a sub page and just link to it, it is drowning out the actual important information. And finally it may be prudent to change the last paragraph to something like When the article meets the Good article criteria note that on the review page, remove the next sentence as that is already covered and leave the final one as is. AIRcorn (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Example of the possible rewording at Wikipedia:Good article nominations#How to review an article

How to review an article When choosing an article to review, keep in mind: that only registered users may review articles—make sure you are logged in; you cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review; you should not pass an article that was put on hold by another editor without assessing the problem; nominations towards the tops of the lists are older, and should be given higher priority, except where the nominator has other articles under review. Start a review page, either by following the start review link in the nomination's entry on this page, or by using the link from the template on the article talk page. If you wish, you can add an initial review or other remarks to the bottom of the review page before saving it. A bot will change the Good article nominations page to indicate that you are reviewing the article. Before reading the article in detail, check it for immediate problems. If you believe a detailed review is premature, add your reasons to the review page and use the fail process; otherwise continue with the next steps. Read the whole article, and decide whether it should pass or fail based on the Good article criteria. You can also put the article "on hold" or ask for a second opinion. Provide a review of the article on the review page detailing what criteria it does not meet. You can use these checklists if you wish and must inform the nominator of your actions. When the article meets the Good article criteria note that on the review page. If a problem is easy to resolve, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. You might also like to consider making suggestions for further improvements if appropriate.

IP reviewer

Hi! Can an admin please speedy Talk:Veganism/GA1 and fix the GAN tag? I'm currently logged in on my non-admin account and won't be on my main account for a few hours (about to catch a plane). Thanks! --Rschen7754 public (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I took care of the GAN tag, but I need someone deleting the page. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis got it this morning. --Rschen7754 22:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Good. Didn't notice. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

Friedrich Eckenfelder was up for GAN, I decided to review it because I like art. Long story short, the article has outstanding issues, of which I think qualify it for a quick fail. The article is entirely sourced by only one source. So I added the one source tag. The article has insufficient inline citations for key opinions, contentious arguments and so on. So I tagged it as such. The prose reads awfully close to what a biographer would. So I tagged it for close paraphrasing. Normally, I would be fine with putting it on hold. And I did do so at first. Until I got curious and looked at the German Wikipedia version of the article.[8] The closer look showed that the nominator Tomcat7, basically translated it and would later put it up for nomination. This is neither wrong, but it does strike me as a bit off, but I have a strong suspicion that Tomcat7 is unable to address my concerns raised in the GA review. Tomcat7 seems to be interested in translating articles from German wiki to the English wiki, while this is not a bad or wrong thing, I do feel that being unable to address the underlying concerns for one simple reason: I do not have reason to believe that Tomcat7 has the source material to address these concerns. I also feel that only having one source raised POV issues and that all the other valid tags I've noted are valid. Was I justified in quick failing it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As I clearly explained, there are no more sources, there are enough in-line citations, it is not close paraphrasing since the book is in German not English, and last but not least Wuselig, the main editor, was excited about my translation into English, but you simply ignored his statement (TLDR). You are a poor reviewer at the moment, so please read WP:GA? very carefully. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I might have misunderstood what this discussion is about: so if I've got it wrong I appologise in advance. The article has references, which you point out are to a book (in German). That means the article is potentially verifiable, so it might well be compliant with WP:WIAGA clauses 2(a), (b) & (c). I assume that you are familiar with Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, especially the section Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#How to review a Good article nomination. Since you signed up to do this review you have to make that decision and more, such as whether that book is a reliable source as per WP:WIAGA clause 2(b). Tomcat7 is the nominator, but the nominator is not required to respond to any of the concerns raised by the reviewer and it is certainly not a requirement of WP:GAN that the nominator has access to any or all of the sources, however he is clearly willing to respond to points raised in the review process. Friedrich Eckenfelder is described in the article as a Swiss-German painter and the reference material is German, yet this seems to cause you considerable concern. That in itself does seems to raise some concerns: why choose a English-language article on a German artist with German sources when you seem unwilling or unable to carry out the responsibilities of reviewing it against WP:WIAGA? I sometimes review English-language articles on Norwegian topics with Norwegian-language sources and I've done ones with Spanish topics and sources, but not so many, so it is my responsibility as the reviewer to evaluate them: I accept that when I sign up for the review(s). Pyrotec (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I can read German just fine, so I'm not out of my element so much. I went into many direct details I why its not the matter of the language or of some translation bit, but it is many issues starting with the fact that the article has only ONE source. Typically, articles are supposed to have multiple sources to prove notability, and while I can understand why a biographer is a preferred source, it should not be the only source and the only view point in the matter. The real issue comes with the fact that I do not believe Tomcat7 can address the actual concerns I've raised about the prose, the lack of inline citations as required for statements of opinion and conjecture which are probably the words of the biographer, but should be sourced as such and have the appropriate page upon which said conjecture is to be found.

Some harmless material could be sourced for the sake of completeness, "Eckenfelder lived in the artists' quarter of Munich, Maxvorstadt, near other artists. He shared quarters first with Bernhard Buttersack. Christian Landenberger lived on the opposite side of the staircase. Paul Burmester, Georg Jauss (de), Richard Winternitz and Gino von Finetti moved in the same circle, as well as the so-called "Schwabenburg" (Swabian castle), the atelier of the painters Anton Braith and Christian Mali, from Biberach an der Riss."

Others must be sourced, "Eckenfelder's biographer Walter Schnerring notes an increasing alienation." What page? Why? "On 9 December 1928 Eckenfelder had signed a joint election manifesto issued by the Sparerbund (Association of Savers) and the Nazi Party, although he was not a member of either organization" Seriously, in line source required. "Friedrich Eckenfelder, whose monarchist worldview had been badly shaken by the Munich Soviet Republic and who was affected by the hyperinflation of the period, could certainly identify with the contents of the manifesto." Source. Then sandwiched between two sourced pieces is this line, " Many people in Balingen—even Eckenfelder's relatives—turned a blind eye to the relationship because they found it embarrassing." If the fact he did not attend a funeral is sourced, why not this conjecture about the nature of the relationship? All of 'Later Works' lacks a source, and I think that such lines as, "Eckenfelder complained about the bad quality of oil paints after the First World War; in particular, the yellow for warm summer light on the hide of a grey was no longer adequate for his requirements." should be sourced at least. Including that he painted mainly by commission.

And it just goes on about the larger claims, without source, "During this period, Eckenfelder is described by the specialist press not only as an animal painter, but also as a landscape painter and "Kleinmeister" (a reference to the "Schweizer Kleinmeister" or Swiss Small Masters, a group of landscape painters who preserved their pictures in sketchbooks)."

Though I do suppose I might have been initially harsh because of this entirely unsourced paragraph, "Friedrich Eckenfelder was born in Bern, the second child of the housekeeper Rosina Vivian and the shoemaker Johann Friedrich Eckenfelder, who had moved from Balingen to Basel when he was appointed journeyman shoemaker in 1859 and there met his future wife. They moved together to Bern while still unmarried, then when Rosina was again pregnant in 1865, the family moved to Balingen and they were married there on 18 July 1865. The children were declared legitimate through marriage and, through their mother, citizens of Württemberg."

It is not that I doubt the existence of the source of the way upon which the information is presented. I just strongly believe that contentious or likely to be challenged material should be sourced and sourced properly. Heck, anything claiming that he signed something related to the Nazi Party and still claims to not have been a member is going to pop a red flag up somewhere. A lack of a source for the birthing of a child out out of wedlock and later declaring them legitimate through marriage? The biographers repeated narrative slips into the article so much so that I think I am reading excerpts of the book itself and not so much of the writer. The measured tone and prose even through a translation, sometimes veers dangerously close for my taste.

Close paraphrasing was noted by the style of the wording and writing. This piece is of concern, "When Eckenfelder returned to Balingen, he met Elsa Martz. 18 years his junior, she was an alto singer and piano teacher from a prosperous middle-class family. When she was young, she had enjoyed going to the opera; however, her family regarded this as beneath their station. Despite or because of receiving many marriage proposals, she had remained single. She and Eckenfelder developed a platonic love." It reads like the biographer's words, this is the same style, tone and even has the biographers own assumptions included. This doesn't seem to be original research, but the claim is unsourced nevertheless. It is simply stunning to me that Tomcat7 does not understand why I am concerned about it.

Also, Tomcat7 has stooped to a personal attack on me with the edit summary of, "(idiotic banner, you have simply no knowledge in wikipedia, do not review GANs anymore. Horrible review)"[9] I feel that my placement of the One Source banner was perfectly reasonable. While this is an essay, I do feel that it adequately sums up my feelings towards this article: WP:1R And Pyrotec, the mere fact that Tomcat7 does not possess ANY source (Since only one source exists according to both Tomcat7 and Wuselig) how can Tomcat7 address any of the issues which I have raised? I do not expect a Good Article Nominator to have all the sources, but not having any is a problem when fixes should be addressed. Tomcat7 does do good work, and I've mentioned this before, but if Tomcat7 is being uncivil because he thinks my concerns are not valid. He's already undid my decision to fail once and now he's removed my valid tags and made a personal attack on me. In all fairness, I've received some counsel on what to do about this and I was more confident that I had closed it correctly. Tomcat7 can re-nom and have someone else review, but I will not be closing in favor with all the issues left unresolved. The personal attack stuff is irrelevant to me, but it does show the character of Tomcat7 when someone does as GAC instructs.

I'll summarize why it failed according to the pretty fair WP:RGA. GNG notes "reliable sources" (emphasis mine). Numerous lines are required to have in-line citations as attributions as per that policy. The prose (even translated) is not exempt from Wikipedia policy about copyright and close paraphrasing. Small matters like an image without description and the external link which is 404 and has been so for months, is minor. Though according to both editors there is only ONE source on the subject. The nominator does not have any of the source material to address concerns. The article is 'good', but not 'Good Article' status. Aside of the fact of Tomcat7's behavior and personal attack, it would be improper to pass the article 'that requires this much work', to quote another editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A minor note: I think that what ChrisGualtieri is trying to say is that an article that relies all of its content to a single source does not properly meets the general notability guideline. Also, in my personal opinion, I wouldn't promote an article that does this. My recommendation is to add more sources here and there so that the article is covered by more than one single source. Anything else, mostly, was properly covered by Pyrotec on his comments above. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the FailedGA template to the article's talk page, since the review was done. A request for a new review is certainly in Tomcat7's purview, and that's also on the talk page, but given the discussion here, it's not appropriate to scrub an actual review from that talk page, even if it's one he disagrees with. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Gualteri, your review is very poor, as you post your opinion rather than following the guidelines and policies listed on WP:GA? (plus writing awfully large texts). Simply find more references rather than bitching about the same thing. Furthermore, why does an article needs more than only one source? Can you point me to any policy or guideline regarding your claim? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I will try to answer what I think are main issues. As far as a translation from another language Wikipedia, I think that is fine and should be judged against our requirements like any other article. The close paraphrasing issue appears to be more speculation than any real evidence. I myself would be wary about passing an article I suspected of close paraphrasing, but I don't think it should be tagged as such without some more evidence (maybe a request to the WP:resource exchange or the original author - who seems to be interested in this version of the article - for the wording of the original source material could be made). The inline citation issue appears to be a judgement call made by the reviewer and it is probably fair enough to ask for more specific references if they are concerned about some of the statements. That should be relatively easy for a nominator to address. The single source to my mind is the biggest issue. I would question the neutrality of an article that just relied on one source and if that was enough of a concern failing in this manner is defiantly warranted. AIRcorn (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, since few want to read my lengthy post, I failed it because in the opening lines of the body the subject was declared as an illegitimate child born out of wed-lock without a source. 27 issues have been presented, but the one source is among the greatest concern. Tomcat7, the policy you want is WP:GNG and its 'sources' not 'source'. As for examples of close paraphrasing, I've browsed a bit of the actual source and I'm not too concerned about it, the bit about the Hitler portrait was in there, but the other quotes did not come up. Lousy 'search within' or whatever, I just wish I had a physical copy to give it a proper look over as my view is heavily restricted. And I won't be getting it from my local libraries as I can usually do so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please name more sources and then I am happy. I know GNG perfectly, no need to tell it to me. The notability criterion is not part of WP:GA?, but refers to the general notability of the article. If you have any concerns regarding its notability, you can nominate it for deletion anytime you want. Your recent comment is another proof of your bad knowledge in GA. It seems like you ignore WP:GA? and the linked policies and guidelines. In your recent review Talk:Mortal Kombat II/GA1, you state that you "Might as well take this one up for review as well", clearly and unenthusiastic approach. And Aircorn, no need to post on my talk page and reminding the past. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that relying on a single source makes it very hard to address concerns about a neutral point of view. Debate on using additional sources belongs on the article's talk page. If the GA reviewer feels that NPOV is being compromised sufficiently to quickfail it, and can point to valid reasons for it, they have a right to do so, though they may seek a second opinion in the interest of fairness. However, I would personally quickfail the article on copyright grounds as several pictures, such as File:Eckenfelder SW F 5 1926.jpg are not public domain in the US. In that example, using common copyright law, the image would not be out of copyright until 2021. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully disagree. First, since there is only one source, all non-neutral wordings can be quoted by naming the author. If there is still any POV wordings, they can be easily reworded during the nomination (that is why we have the reviewing procedure). And the pictures can be simply removed without quickfailing the article. However, I am not sure why they should be removed only because one country has a different policy than the rest of the world. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree all you like. By naming the author, you're not really addressing the NPOV issues, but merely turning the article into an opinion piece, which other editors would have justification for adding {{POV}}, which results in a quickfail. Either way, The copyright issues are paramount to one of Wikipedia's five pillars of free content, and because our servers are hosted in the US, that's the copyright law we have to follow, and we must get it right. My policy is - if in doubt, delete. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, actually the opinion of the biographer is fine as long as it is not overdramatized and redundant. Your comment does not make sense, as all the reviews on Wikipedia should be also removed, including those on album articles. Furthermore, this is Wikipedia, not Commons. It is not our job to check the licenses if the picture is on Commons and in public domain in all countries except USA. However, feel free to nominate the pictures for deletion. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Please remember we are talking about good articles, not B class or lower articles. I would personally expect an album relying on a single review (such as Allmusic) to be sent to Articles for Deletion, as the general notability guidelines state you need significant coverage in multiple (my emphasis) independent reliable sources. Anyway, further discussions should continue on the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

GNG is not part of WP:GA?; it is about the general notability. The GAN reviewer merely reviews the content of the article. Furthermore, if the reviewer on Allmusic is professional, why should the article be sent to WP:AFD? --Tomcat (7) 13:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7, I guess that the issue is not wether GNG belongs to GA? or not, but if an article can reach good article status when its notability is disputed. What I understand from this is that Friedrich Eckenfelder cannot reach GA status until its notability concerns are solved. The good article criteria doesn't include any notability clause because an article up for GAN is supposed to have already met such guidelines. Of course, this is not written, and I've seen good articles being deleted because of this; 3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album) is an example of a deleted good article because of notability concerns. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 13:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion is a last resort in my book, the article has one major source and I noticed a 28 page 'document' about some authors in which his name was referenced in passing, but just because I cannot find it online doesn't mean said sources don't exist. They likely DO exist and that is why no one will put it up for deletion. Though seriously, the criteria DOES mention it in Neutrality. See WP:NPOV, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." You have one source, it is hard to contest the biographers viewpoint which is cited in the article and it leaks in and poisons it. Even if you delete that part, much of the opinion about the work is still represented entirely by a single source. Perhaps GAN expects more then 1 source, because most articles won't make it far without demonstrating notability. Though yes, the copyright matter of the works are do come to mind, but I believe it was the self portrait and only one other work which are under copyright. Though while not in Germany, only in the USA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A masterclass

• I missed all the fun yesterday, and today I find myself in the position of informing the emperor that he has no clothes. Over at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Reviewed by any registered user ??? an editor states/asks: "When the Good article criteria vaguely states the requirements and leaves many things on the reviewer, is it really a good idea to let any registered user review a GA nomination? Can any user properly judge the "factual accuracy" and "broad coverage" points? (Has this point been already discussed in past? Please direct me to that past discussion to avoid repetition.)".

• This review and the associated discussions in this section is a master class on how not to review GANs and fail them. At various points both in the review and here the nominator advises the reviewer that the reviewer does not know how to review (well less politely), which appears to be a reasonable assessment of this review; and the reviewer has leant nothing judging by the comments in the section below: I've just done this and got flak about it. Though it was always as I thought it to be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC).

• There are clearly some very good points made in the review and above (and I will come back to them). This nomination was clearly not assessed against WP:WIAGA, but against Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and the reviewers' interpretation of it. Clearly the reviewer considers that the article was/is a "quick fail" and that those points have clearly been both here and on the /GA1. However, No valid arguments have been made that quick fail was the correct sentence: the "quick fail" was clearly fudged and/or fixed; to quote from the /GA1: "There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags." I am going to place those now. There clearly were no clean up banners, etc, on the nomination and that can easily be checked from the article's history. The reviewer, well, added them and then invoked "quick fail" along with a few more fake arguments. Other fake reasons for "quick failing" seem to be that an illustration had a copyright problem and that its banner was inadequate, thereby the article could be quickfailed on copyright - clearly as the nominator pointed out - removing the illustration and/or fixing the banner removed the "problem(s)". The nominator had the right to renominate the article, which was done, but the template should have been set to Page 2 and Not Page 1. BlueMoonset has now fixed that problem.

• The review started off well: This article has a major concern that jumps right out at the beginning, it is almost entirely sourced on "Walter Schnerring (1984) (in German). Der Maler Friedrich Eckenfelder. Ein Münchner Impressionist malt seine schwäbische Heimat. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag." And this qualifies for the tag 'Single source'. For an objective point of view, and better analysis I must insist that additional resources be required. While this is not a strict point of the criteria it is implied that a neutral and fair article will have several different sources and views from different individuals. The one source tag seems very much valid to me, and as a GAN, that tag would be relevant. I've fixed a few typos, if they are some regional matter feel free to revert them back. It did not appear correct to my checkers or my eyes. Some of the prose needs work. In the paragraphs for 'Youth' we have 'The boy's talent for drawing..' and 'The fourteen-year-old boy was raised'. These are poor form and could be made clearer. Sections like 'The Munich period' have off-topic or curiosities which seem to add nothing to the article. Such as the notable teachers of the school, or the concerns of the son who opened a book shop. Furthermore, lines like this MUST be sourced, "Eckenfelder's biographer Walter Schnerring notes an increasing alienation." As a sentence is also poor form. Though such contentious material and possible claims extend throughout the entirety of the article. Here is another example, "Many people in Balingen—even Eckenfelder's relatives—turned a blind eye to the relationship because they found it embarrassing." These lines need a direct inline citation. I do believe you are able to tell which lines these are. Since the prose itself needs much tweaking and cleaning up, I do believe you can address this matter when doing so.'

• Let's be clear: the reviewer has made a convincing case both here and on /GA1 that the article is non-compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 2 (b), so that leads to a choice of "Fail" or "Hold". If the nominator does not have the sources then a "fail" is justified, on that basis. However, as I correctly stated above, there is no obligation for the nominator to address the problem. The article could have been on hold (that is the choice of the reviewer) in anticipation that an English-speaker from German wikipedia would have access to the source and would fix problems. But to emphasise yet again that is a fail against WP:WIAGA clause 2 (b), NOT a "Quick fail" as per Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. If there are problems with the banners for illustrations and copyright of illustrations, then that is a non-compliance with WP:WIAGA clauses 6(a) & (b); however, that is easily fixable by the nominator or the reviewer, as was pointed out by the nominator, and certainly does not merit a quickfail. The nominator, however, never ever made those cases that the article was non-compliant with WP:WIAGA, it is still being pushed as "quickfail" against Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. I'm not so sure how to handle "copy, translate and then paste" from the German-wikipedia, it is clearly not a copyright violation and "copy and paste" within EN-wikipedia happens all the time. At most, the article would have needed a template to say that some material had been taken from German wikipedia, so it is not a valid reason for "quickfail". Possibly the use of a single source is non-compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 4, but the reviewer would then need to assess whether the source was a reliable source and the argument is much more about justifying the unjustifiable "quickfail".

• To summarise, the article was non-compliant against WP:WIAGA and so it should have been failed for that reason. If reviewer has to Fake-fail quick-fail nominations by putting cleanup tags on the nominations and then use the presence of cleanup tags to "quick fail" the article, then they potentially bring WP:GAN is disrepute; and reviews should should not be done in this way. The article could have been validity failed for non-compliance WP:WIAGA, but it was not failed for those reasons. Nominators, should have their articles fairly assessed against criteria for nominations, which is WP:WIAGA. If the nominator-reviewer breaks down, which appears to be the case here, the nominator should close the review and allow the article to renominated, if that is the choice of the nominator. Pyrotec (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay 'bad word choice' on 'quick fail'. This matter is much more simple then you make it out to be. The nominator should be able to address basic issues with the article, especially a content matter. I am of the firm belief that if a nominator has 0 zeroes for the topic they are discussing and cannot address the issues, then the 'on-hold' I issued need not apply. They will never be able to address a problem of content the requires access to the material. I can start another topic on it, but I'm going to be civil and coy on the reasons I declined as alluded to in my review. The second GA reviewer has also picked up on the matter. Now the disagreement is off to DRN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Pyrotec, your assessment of my behavior is very very misguided. There was a tag in place by another user before I began. Tomcat7 did not address it, so yes, according to the compliance matter and many other matters, I was well within my right to quick fail it and replace said tags. They were there prior to my review and were removed by Tomcat7. As I note on the DRN: "The original one source tag as added by Paperluigi [10] and was removed without addressing it just two days before my review began." That is pretty clear cut that I did not 'fake fail' it. Please remove or strike this, as you are gravely mistaken on your assessment. It tarnishes me and you should not be doing such a scholarly-type post when the basic facts you present are wrong. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification on the tag. I was a bit concerned about that aspect of events. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two points here. On the first point, I'm afraid that you are wrong. There is no obligation on the nominator to fix errors whatsoever. Any user can nominate an article but the nominator is not required to fix errors, anyone, including the reviewer (if the reviewer so chooses) or no one, can fix them. A German editor, Wuselig, who appears to the principal editor of the matching German wikipedia article, wrote on the /GA1 page, so he might have been willing to fix some of the lack of citation errors and he would have been entitled to do so (but that is mere speculation). In this review there was an ongoing concern over the use of a single source, the nominator was in the process of fixing some of the errors that were correctly identified. Other "errors", such as copyright concerns over the use of the German wikipeida article were recorded on the /GA1 that the nominator stated were not copyright concerns. However, to move on: the reviewer, when assessing compliance against WP:WIAGA, has the "power" to decide whether to fail or to place "on hold", so I can't say that any decision to choose a "fail" instead of an "on hold" was "wrong", but the justification given clearly was. In fact the article was not "failed" it was "quick failed", so a "hold" does not come into it.

On the second point, I did not check the article's history in any depth, I looked at the article as it existed on 10th December 2012 at version 14:35, 8 December 2012 and it had no flags visible (the GA/1 suggests that the review was started at 03:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)) and I looked at at the /GA1, which is the official record of the review. There was a statement from you that I did not quote, it stated I'm going to put this on hold, it needs a lot of work. I won't quick-fail it, but my concerns are great.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC) and you then had a change of mind and put (which I did not quote it at the time) On second thought, I am quick failing this after looking at the German Wikipedia. Google translate was also disturbing here. Since most of the work seems to have been transposed directly from German Wikipedia, I am not certain that this applies for GA. While certainly a notable painter, the fact of one source and the similarity is just too great to ignore. Feel free to get a second opinion on this, but I do not feel comfortable passing this until it is rewritten and improved beyond the one source.. I only quoted the words, which were: "There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags." I am going to place those now. They were added by you at this edit. I took the words in the /GA1 at fact value, you'd gone for a "quick fail" after some corrective actions had been done and the article had been placed On Hold. You also stated that you were "quick failing" against #3 for flags that you were going to added. There is no mention in the /GA1 that you were restoring flags that had been placed there by another editor. So in summary, I failed to spot that another editor put flags on the article and that they were removed; and you failed to record that in the official record of the review that this had happened and that you were replacing them. Pyrotec (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have changed "fake-fail" to "quickfail". I suspect that this review would have been entirely unremarkable if the article had been reviewed and assessed against WP:WIAGA, fully documented on the /GA1 and "failed" against the clauses 1 to 6 (as per the /GA2 which is still in progress) not "quick failed" against #3 part way through the review. There are many things about that first review that have come to light on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations as part of a "word of words" between the nominator and reviewer (I've listed these roles alphabetically) after the review was closed. Many of these details don't appear in /GA. This does, unfortunately, appear to be a very good example of how not to do a review. Pyrotec (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You are entirely wrong. You still assume bad faith on my part and for that, you will not see that when Tomcat7 has been disruptively editing and perpetuating knowingly false material and continues to do so, AGF fails and I need not be to the letter of the GAN when the entire article carries the problems of its de.wiki version. Several people have said why not PROD it, as it will not survive. The false references and the close paraphrasing from the original work compared to the de.wiki one are striking. I am not the only editor to notice this, the other editor, now doing the GA review, has mentioned this. The issues with the article are embedded and all those issues are the reason why I switched from 'on hold' to 'fail'. You seem to be all-knowing about this review, you know nothing, much less how I feel about Tomcat7's actions. I'll take this to the proper boards. I am done discussing this here. I asked a question of whether or not I was justified in doing so, if a few glances says yes, then imagine how I feel with the book's material in front of me and not finding what was sourced? In short, when I realized the gravity of the situation, I had to fail it. Technicalities aside, I really don't care for theory about GANs when you are well aware that the nominator is fabricating the in line citations to the book material. End of story. That is the final straw that broke the camel's back from 'on hold' to fail and tag appropriately. I need not say everything on my mind and you took much out of context for this little lesson you did. I am disappointed in your actions, but you have not understood from the very beginning. I will not bother trying to make you understand any more. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Lists at GAN

Okay. Someone asked me about this and I am interested in what community thinks: Could lists be included inside the good article scope as good lists? This question was brought up to me by several users that were concerned about lists jumping directly from DYK to FLC, losing the good part of the process that common articles enjoy. My answer would be that FLC is far more relaxed than FAC and actually it works as the equivalent of GAN instead of FAC. Any thoughts? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. FLC is no way comparable to FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never nominated anything at FLC, but that's the impression I get too. --Rschen7754 04:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been involved in a few, and the reviews mainly revolve around table layout and accessibility issues. There's a fundamental issue with lists as well that's rather at odds with the GA and FA criteria. If someone were to produce a list of Welsh Methodist chapels let's say (and I've got no idea if anyone has, so I'm not pointing a finger), how would we able to judge if the list is complete, and hence the article comprehensive? Malleus Fatuorum 04:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

FLC is not difficult at all. The first time it may be a pain youknowwhere, but after you get into it, collecting FLs is just rudimentary work. But that is after you get how it works. FAC is not the same; the level of professionalism in prose, completeness and structure that is needed at FAC is way above the one at FLC. Of course, I am not saying that FLC reviewers are not doing their job well; they do. It's like GAN. The issue is that many FL candidates fail because of glaring issues that could have been solved at a previous stage that is unexistent. Peer review is almost dying, and that process is useless when it comes to lists. I think that the idea of having a previous step before FLC is a good one, and I think that here is the right place to make the proposal and see if we can start using the GL acronym. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see what the difference would be between a Good List and a Featured List, as the FL criteria are not all that demanding. Surely we wouldn't be saying, for instance, that acessibility issues don't matter at GLC but they do at FLC? Perhaps the real answer, unacceptable as it undoubtedly would be, is to recognise that FLC is pretty much the equivalent of GAN, and drop the idea of featured lists altogether. Of course I realise that would never fly, but it's the plain and simple fact of the matter. Malleus Fatuorum 05:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I am struggling too to see how this would happen. The main, obvious difference is the reviewing procedure (one reviewer, no consensus, no delegates, the GAN way), but we'd need to draft a proper criteria, below FL's, to start developing this. As I said, several users asked me about this, and I think is worth to give it a think now that we see some kind of acceptance on the matter. What we could also do is make FLC's standards higher, so that it could claim its place along FAC and develop GLC as a more relaxed assessment process. This would take some time, of course. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

But in what way could you make the standard for a FLC higher (I reject entirely the idea of making the standard for a GLC lower)? If the only difference is to be one reviewer rather than multiple reviewers then the present FLC process may as well stand, as any GLC reviewer worth his or her salt would be applying the same criteria anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 05:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

... added to which, if we have a new GLC process then we'll need an accompanying GLR; where are all these reviewers to come from? Who wants to review in today's climate? Malleus Fatuorum 05:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm I was thinking of just adding lists to GAN, and handling the reviews here, in a new section called lists or something similar. Let me think of it a bit more. I can draft a possible criteria for good lists and post it here to see more thoughts :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

But the GA criteria no more apply to lists than do the FA criteria. Chalk and cheese really. Malleus Fatuorum 05:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. What I meant was handling the reviews here at GAN instead of creating a new page and that stuff, but with its proper separate criteria. Anyways, if this is going to be proposed, I need some strong drafts to show. I think that it may work with the proper tweaks, but it'll take times, of course. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A potential problem I see is that if the GAN page were to include list candidates, which would need to meet different criteria, novice reviewers may apply the wrong set of criteria, and that may cause confusion. There would need to be a clearer dividing line between GLN and GAN. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(About me: I haven't contributed much to FLC. I'm simply not that active an editor. But I have been participating (as a reviewer) and keeping a close eye on FLC for a long time.) In my opinion, FLC is simply drowning in work. It is kept afloat by just a handful of dedicated reviewers (myself not included), who comment on all or most submissions and ensure they meet a minimum level of quality. They basically have to start from scratch each time because there's no prior step and peer review is especially useless for lists. I don't want to bore anyone, but if I thought it would do any good I could write a whole book analyzing the complex set of problems FLC faces. Suffice it to say that with more manpower injected into FLC's system or workload taken off its shoulders, demands on and quality of featured lists would skyrocket. GAN produces results as good as FLC currently does, you say? Assuming that to be true, making lists go through GAN before allowing them at FLC is exactly what needs to be done. After that, and allowing for some time for that change to kick in at FLC, we could reexamine whether FLC is worth keeping around. Personally, I think the answer would, at that time, be a clear yes, but you don't have to agree with me on that part to support introducing lists into GAN. Goodraise 03:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point in adding to the GAN workload without a good reason. Is there a good reason to do this? AIRcorn (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

More bling? I wonder where these GLC reviewers are going to come from, as it seems to me that reviewers are a dying breed. Malleus Fatuorum 08:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps they are. But why have three or more reviewers do at FLC what one could achieve here? Goodraise 08:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Because they couldn't and wouldn't. How many list articles do you think would pass any proposed GL criteria that wouldn't also meet the current FL criteria? None would be my guess. Malleus Fatuorum 09:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My guess would be more than none, but for the sake of the argument I'll agree with you on that point. So what? Unfortunately I don't understand what you mean by "Because they couldn't and wouldn't." Neither do I know hat "bling" is supposed to be. Goodraise 11:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I will leave "bling" for others to explain; In my day when I came across a word I didn't understand I consulted a dictionary. How times have changed. Malleus Fatuorum 11:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As an experienced dictionary user, surely you are aware that words can have different meanings depending on the context in which they are used. Neither of the two dictionaries I habitually use has provided me with a definition that applies here without requiring additional guesswork on my part. Well, I guess it's a matter of preference. Some people like to understand and to be understood, while others would rather get an opportunity to patronize. Goodraise 11:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've made it a rule to leave talk page discussions once stupidity kicks in, so I will bid you goodbye. Malleus Fatuorum 11:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Bot

Any idea what's making the bot repeatedly list the Biology and medicine GANs every update? I checked the template formatting and it seems to be ok. Sasata (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure the reason, but it looks like it deleted the entire natural science and biology sections under the edit summary of maintenance. I could not undue it and figured a copy paste work around would be deleted again.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Well, that's one way to reduce the backlog! Sasata (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Let me see what can be done. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like User:Tito Dutta deleted the Swami Vivekananda nomination from the page (instead of from the article's talk page, where it should have been done) and took out the section's "Bot End" along with it, causing the big break. Errors like this is precisely why we urge people not to edit WP:GAN to begin with. The bot really will take care of most things if the talk pages are edited. (The bot will list each attempt to add nominations that belong, even if it fails to do so because of some problem, like a subtopic that doesn't exist as given.) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I realized. I guess that I have fixed the issue now. Although, can anyone double-check? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping your subsequent try does it, as it's what I was planning to do. We'll see in about six minutes. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Let's hope. The bot was making a big mess there. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You should not, however, have subsequently duplicated Tito's edit, even without the error. Please let the bot take care of it; that's why it's there. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, true. I will revert and let the bot do the job. Edit: Seems like the bot went back to normal. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep, the bot's all set, which is a relief, and it also seems to have caught up on the intervening additions, subtractions, and so on ... which is exactly what it should have done. Good sign, that. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Help!

I started a review on an article (Red-collared Widowbird) only to find that another, somehow hidden, review had already been done, and the article quick-failed. When I investigated further, I found that the editor had made some changes, and resubmitted it, but had changed the article's status directly on the article's talk page here. That seems to have put things out of synch, as I can't see Sasata's first review unless I physically type its address in to my browser. Can anyone help? I've already let the editor know he/she shouldn't change the status there again. MeegsC (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just found a second article with the same problem. I'm wondering if the bot isn't transcluding the review page if the reviewer immediately fails the article. See Crab-eating Macaque for another example of an article that failed its GA attempt, but has no GA review section transcluded. MeegsC (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I can manually add the {{articlehistory}}. I'll do it for Red-collared Widowbird. Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Now done. I've added the {{articlehistory}} for Red-collared Widowbird; and just transcribed the review template Crab-eating Macaque on to its takpage, as its not yet on its second review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I made mistakes in closing Pyramid of Sahure!

Hi, I forgot to close Pyramid of Sahure when I failed it a while ago. I've closed it now and it's been renominated. I tried to make little adjustments so that the new nomination would lead to the new nomination page. Hope I did it ok. If I didn't, would someone who know how this works please take a look at what I did? Thanks so much! MathewTownsend (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Having |status=onreview when there is no review will confuse the bot, as you've seen. Now fixed, I hope. Bencherlite^Talk 13:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem entry

I got reverted with this edit and I do not understand why. I thought I had made the proper manual correction to avoid the redlink for The Dark Knight Rises nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Because it was in a subheader, it got archived. Took the template out of the archive so it's good now. Wizardman 05:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 WikiCup

Hi, this is just a note to say that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting soon, with signups remaining open throughout January. The WikiCup is an annual competition in which competitors are awarded points for contributions to the encyclopedia, focussing on audited content (such as good articles, featured articles, featured pictures and such) and high importance articles. It is open to new and old Wikipedians and WikiCup participants alike. Even if you don't want to take part, you can sign up to receive the monthly newsletters. Rules can be found here. Any questions can be directed to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wonder Woman GA2

Sockpuppet rushed through the GA listing last night after they revealed their identity by accident (although there was already more than enough evidence to support an invesitgation). Admin has ideff blocked reviewer/sockpuppet and warned the master/nominator. I have removed the listing, returned the page to its former rating and removed the GA status on the article itself. How should the review page be handled?Talk:Wonder Woman/GA2 --Amadscientist (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is nominator reviewing there own content through a sockpuppet then we should delete it. I hope that warning was strong (can't find it on WonderBoy1998 (talk · contribs)s talkpage). AIRcorn (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Tagged Talk:Femme Fatale Tour/GA1 as well (started by the sockpuppet). Can an admin familiar with the GA process please sort these out. AIRcorn (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that the master did recieve a warning and it was under the heading Sockpuppeting, its still there on the talkpage.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I just removed the "onreview" status from the tour's talk page, which ought to straighten out the entry on the GAN page. Someone else had already removed the tour's GA1 transclusion from the talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines

I made a boldish update to the Guidelines with this edit [11]. I brought it up here earlier, but it might have passed unnoticed. Feel free to revert or imporve if you have issues. AIRcorn (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

IPhone 5 GACs

Can someone make some sense of Talk:IPhone 5/GA1, Talk:IPhone 5/GA2 and Talk:IPhone 5/GA3 and properly add a T:AH to the talk page. It is on GA3 with no record of previous discussions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't really know what is going on there. Looks like a conflict between the nominators, regular editors and the reviewers. The reviewer has retired and since they only added a GA list to the review page before effectively blanking it I put a speedy tag on it. I put the first GA in an article history template as a fail. Hopefully that cleans things up. AIRcorn (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary move

Hello,

please move back the templates and notices that appeared on the introduction box. Moving all of them into one page produces more trouble than before. What was the problem with the previous version. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved them. The reason that I gave was that the long list of templates was drowning out the important information, which was explaining that you needed to provide a review. The templates are optional in any case so it seems a bit overkill to have them all listed here. Plus by putting them all on their own page they can be displayed better (with actual examples of what the template produces). You can move them back if you want as I admit it was a slightly bold move, but I would be interested to know what the trouble with them being on a separate page is. AIRcorn (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Serious Issues with a GA review

Im having some issues with a certain review on the article "Ghost in the Shell". Although i CAN agree with the things i cant agree with the subjective issues the reviewer is asking for. It would be great if i could get a less bias review. Please discuss here: Talk:Ghost in the Shell/GA1.Lucia Black (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You changed the scope from media franchise to manga after I started my review in this diff. [12] This article is the home page for the Ghost in the Shell template and is used as the media franchise page. It should not be changed unilaterally because you want it to be the manga only. That is not subjective, its pretty much fact. Watch the use of the word 'bias' because that is negative and assumes I am not a neutral party. I know the material, that's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

Copy right issues? Isn't that something that can only be uncovered with a thorough review of the entire article? I have stopped on a review momentarily. Do I have to go through everything to look for this or can I just move on with the review and if I find issues stop and quick fail at that time?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If I find definitive proof of a copyright vio I'd fail immediately. Forget 'quick-fail', CV is against Wikipedia's policies. If you find one CV, you may not be certain you got it all, so I'd rather be safe then sorry. Though you can put it on hold if you wish, if it is small or accidental, some CV's are done in good faith, so use your judgement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, Copyvio is a clear barrier to a pass, so handle it appropriately based on the severity: if accidental/incidental/easily fixable via attribution or better paraphrasing, then a hold may be appropriate, else a quick fail is the default choice. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We had issues with some nominations (many of them from students) that contained lots of copyright infringements. There was also some concerns raised here when DYK was having problems. That criteria is a bit different to the others in that, like you say, it is not an easy quickfail to spot. However, in some cases it can stand out (for example overuse of one source, language that is not consistent with the style in the rest of the article or formatting issues) and like you suggest you can always stop a review and fail on copyright concerns once you have started if you think they are substantial enough. You might find this tool useful. AIRcorn (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Review not transcluded

I reviewed this nomination[13] yesterday, but nothing happened. Is it just a matter of waiting, or did I d something wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry. Sometimes the bot forgets to transclude the review. — ṞṈ 03:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgetting for a couple of days seems odd, so I've edited the Talk:Nyala page to do what the bot would have done had it done the proper transclusion. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as it turns out, you did something wrong. Somehow, instead of the usual "Reviewer:" line near the top of the GA1 page, it had your name in bold at the beginning of that line, and the bot couldn't parse it properly, since it depends on the "Reviewer" string being there at the beginning. I've just edited the page, and that should get everything finally squared away. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks, I made the same mistake on the fisher (animal) page, but just fixed it after I saw this. Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it a problem that I passed the fisher article before the bot got the chance to transclude it here? Now it only states it's under review, though I passed it. The counter thing also states I've done 3 reviews, whereas I've actually done 4. FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The bot has transcluded it, but you haven't finished passing the article. You still need to replace the (just transcluded) GA nominee template on the article's talk page with the GA template: instructions on what you need to do are on the GAN page in one of the upper sections, the "Pass" box. It's a very important step. (I'm afraid I don't know the details of how the counter works, or why it might be coming up one short in your case.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Heheh, thanks, I've done two reviews before, so I have no idea why I've already forgotten these steps. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

These are the six articles I've reviewed:[14][15][16][17][18][19] Did I make any mistakes that results in only five GARs being counted? FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There are several counters. The one on the GAN page that is listed against an editor's name "appears" to count review pages opened, not reviews completed. So if you opened six reviews then your count should be six, but if the process is "bypassed" for any reason things fall off the count. I strongly suspect that if the bot does not transcribe the review template onto the article's talkpage then that review is not counted: Talk:Nyala/GA1 was not transcribed by the bot, so that is probably the missing one. Pyrotec (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've only closed two reviews, so the current count of five cannot be linked to reviews that are merely "opened". FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Title move during review

Aphis fabae was moved to Black bean aphid‎ during the review, and now this page says the latter needs a new review, and that the former is failed? Should the old review page be moved? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the review page should have been moved at that time; I've just moved it. Everything should heal up properly when the bot does its next run. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Lukashenko

I was considering reviewing Alexander Lukashenko's GAN, but couldn't find the reassessment where it was previously demoted from GA status. Looking at the article's history more closely, it looks like the Good Article template was simply removed by a vandal, and no one caught it for a year: [20] Am I misreading? -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I found a GA subpage that never got transcluded, but either way, IPs are not supposed to be doing that, so if you want to give a skim review I don't think anyone will mind a re-promotion. Wizardman 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

At a glance, it looks like it does have some minor issues with the lead and WTA worth revising, so I'll probably give this a longer review anyway. Thanks for finding that subpage. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Review paused...

I was wondering if anyone had any advice on Caerphilly Castle's review? It was started on 15 Dec, but didn't progress far. I've left the reviewer a couple of messages, but had no response. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the reviewer would have seen your first "no rush" message on December 30, and she hasn't done an edit since very early on January 1 so she hasn't seen the other two. It looks like she took on 19 reviews during the recent backlog elimination drive, and finished 10 by the end of the year, though she said (as of December 18) that she intended to finish them all by January 1. It's probably a little early to go looking for a new reviewer for the remaining nine quite yet, yours included. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Huế Phật Đản shootings

User:A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a promoted Huế Phật Đản shootings to GA status.[21],and was just blocked for creating hoaxes.[22][23]. You may want to reevaluate Huế Phật Đản shootings's GA status. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review procedure

In connection with user mentioned in the section above and fakes in general, I think the current procedures/guideline might benefit from a more explicit/stricter formulations with regard to checking the accuracy of content. A discussion and an RFC in connection with that has already started here: Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Problems_with_criteria_and_review_procedure --Kmhkmh (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Very short articles acceptable?

I'm reviewing a very brief article on Herb Mitchell (actor) (3kb of readable prose). It appears to cover the major events of his life in as much depth as the few sources on him permit; I did a bit of independent searching and turned up no further information. So I'm inclined to pass it so far, but wanted to check here first-- what's the precedent on passing GAs of this brevity? Discouraged or no big deal? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe we've seen shorter hurricane articles with only like 3 para of prose. I would think this is okay, if you believe that it sufficiently covers the topic. --MASEM (t) 23:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as it covers everything, it's fine. The lead for Herb Mitchell clearly needs some expansion, but other than that, the size looks fine.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy responses. I'm working on the lead with the editor in the review right now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Rebound nomination

Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA4 was failed at 15:52, 26 December 2012 and Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA5 was opened at 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC) with no intervening editorial contributions to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have requested that the nominator, Tomcat7 (talk · contribs), GA4 reviewer,Khazar2 (talk · contribs), and the GA5 reviewer, ColonelHenry (talk · contribs), all comment here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• TonyTheTiger: I had several reservations that you raise with this informal RFC and was going to do an in depth look at the difference between GA4 and GA5 because of my concerns. Based on a cursory look I was about to fail it and admonish the nominator for a disingenuous end-run around the GA4 critique. I've seen this happen too often in GA nominations in the past and several have become GAs that really don't meet the criteria IMHO. But the moment you point that out or refuse, someone will just ignore your argument and renominate. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why was it picked up for renomination so quickly? Immediate renomination isn't generally a problem if there's the traditional lag time between nomination and review, which has stretched to months at times. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't actually consider time to be the issue. In 4 hours, a diligent editor could turn around a failed GA review. My problem is editorial effort. There were no edits to the article between its failure and its renomination. Time is irrelevant. Editorial effort is what matters. The concerns were not addressed before renomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I don't have much to add beyond my comments in the linked GA Review. In doing my review, it didn't appear to me that the article met criteria 3a and 3b, even after two weeks of discussion and some revision. (The biggest issue is that FD's major works aren't really discussed, with a secondary issue being the article's excessive detail leading to extreme length, 70kb of prose.) But I'm a comparatively new reviewer, and don't mind at all Tomcat's seeking another opinion. I've certainly been wrong before. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• It being immediately re-nommed after a fail shows bad judgment, and an immediate claim to review even more so. Sometimes an article can be fixed, but given the track record of the nominator based on reviews I've done of late, it was not the right move. Wizardman 03:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Boils down to forum shopping. --Rschen7754 03:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Khazar2: I would add criteria 2b problems too...I am not happy with a simple endnote at the end of long paragraphs full of many specific facts.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just looked through the article history, and it is clear to me that this is borderline abusing the GAN process. Here's the timeline:

August 6: GA nom, reviewed and failed August 26

August 26: GA nom number 2, reviewed September 17, failed October 10

October 10: After TEN MINUTES, GA nom number three.

October 12: GA3 review, failed the 19th.

November 6: For the first time, Tomcat actually waits. GA nom number four, reviewed Dec 12, failed Dec 26.

December 26: Re-nommed immediately for the third time.

I'm being bold per the above and removing the GA template completely, and I don't want to see it added again anytime soon. Actually fix the issues and get outside opinions first before wasting review power that we don't have. Wizardman 03:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Good call, Wizardman. I was going to fail GA5 and recommend something similar. I think the contributors aiming for GA4 and GA5 should step back for a few weeks, address the issues from GA4, submit the article for peer review, address any issues raised there, and then reconsider the options for GA or FA. I think with the subject's importance, the size and scope the article should have, and what PR would point to, this article should instead aim towards FA in the next six months.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The only objection was to add more plot to the main article, but as I did add short descriptions, I am both amazed and shocked why Wizard removed the banner. --Tomcat (7) 11:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I also think that nominating here is not a good idea. Too many people with different biases (as can be seen in the several GANs) who mainly raise their opinions instead of looking at the criterions. GAN is poor in many ways.--Tomcat (7) 11:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"and recommend something similar" - a clear example of POV, recommandations are not needed, you need to review the article against the criterions. "address the issues from GA4" - I clearly have. The trips are clearly important to his life, but Khazar insists that they are not needed and orders to remove that biographical information for more redundant plots which do no belong to this article.--Tomcat (7) 11:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Tomcat7: Are you deliberately being obtuse? Because I think you're taking yourself a bit too seriously and that you don't play well with others who just happen to disagree with being your willing narcissistic supply. Simply, wow. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• It is called freedom of speech, I have the right to express my opinions, and if you find it was a personal attack, then you have a real problem. It is clear that I added a summary, but Khazar simply ignores this notion. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as an unwarranted personal attack. I think the editor should refactor. TomCat seems to be simply saying that he thought he had addressed the concerns.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"recommendations are not needed" seems a little presumptuous and essentially a statement of "your opinion doesn't matter" given context. -.- But apparently that doesn't matter. No need for refactoring. My words stand as I meant them. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• It is clearly not useful to open successive GA reviews without substantial intermediate improvement to the article. It looks uncomfortably like reviewer shopping instead of a genuine will to improve the article. I wonder if given these and other similar problems with TomCat7's editing in the past, it is wise for Tomcat7 to participate in the Wikicup which awards points based on number of successful reviews. It seems that this might encourage trying to force articles through the review process without sufficient attention to quality. Maybe it would be best for TomCat7's credibility as an editor not to participate in this kind of competition right now. In anycase I think perhaps Tomcat7 should refrain from nominating any GAN's for the next couple of months and dedicate himself to substantial article improvement instead, to regain the trust of the reviewing community. In the contrary case it seems likely that he will completely lose his credibility as an article writer. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Today Tomcat7 renominated Ortrun Enderlein within 30 minutes of the GA having been failed, with no intermediate edits to the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I added two references. I explained the snow controversy. Adding more about this incident produces WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. It is about one person, not the event. Your quickfail was not appropiate.--Tomcat (7) 20:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How about you address the concerns other editors have with the appropriateness of your (ab)use of the GA process? Then we can address the appropriateness of my quickfail. The alleged inappropriateness of the latter seems to be dependent on the assumotion of the appropriateness of the former.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not abuse anything, your quickfail was inappropiate.--Tomcat (7) 20:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Then renominate and see if you find a more friendly reviewer. That seems to be what you usually do.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

First off, Tomcat7, you had a source for something that wasn't in that source and you know it. You've done this before on the Eckenfelder page and you got caught. Not having the source means you don't get to add inline citations where it 'looks good'. You replaced it with a personal website, not a reliable source, but you know what, I never questioned him being Ortun's brother. I just pointed out that it was not there. Though the second one you added is better. For marriage I'd think a source stating it would be nice, but I'm not splitting hairs here, the second half was cited that's all I was pointed out. There is no credible reason to doubt either of those claims. My issue was that you do not attempt to explain the varying accounts in your own sources, and I know you can read them. There are three different accounts of the 'snow test' that stripped Ortrun of the gold medal. It is not undue to go into detail when issues of bribery and foul play by an official are found in reliable sources and already in the article. Said incident led to a new system for measuring temperatures and seriously damaged the reputation of the GDR team. Adding 'allegedly' doesn't do justice to the biggest incident in her career. If its going to GA I'd expect some clarity and disclosure surrounding the events. Also according to the source, after the test the sled was allowed to cool in the snow and then did the run. After the run it was disqualified. Considering the official has no qualms about his enmity with the east? Please. You don't even describe correctly the test done, or account for the information in the sources. An article should not reach GA status when it does not properly deal with controversy and reliable resources that caused a scandal big enough to change the sport. It is not 'undue', its proper context. You got four sources for the claim of innocence yet no information about what was done after the scandal. I think I make a strong point about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Tomcat, please stop making excuses and exercise some logic. It's not like this is the first time you've abused GAN by renominating an article too soon. Let me remind you that you've done this before with the Friedrich Eckenfelder article that I reviewed and continue to do it with the Ortrun Enderlein article that was failed yesterday. I'm going to echo ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) on this one: Simply, wow. There's probably more, but those are the only two that I know of. When you renominate poor articles over and over and over again, it'll eventually catch the attention of editors who actually care that these articles are up to standard. If an article you nominated for the fourth time has failed again—for the fourth time—don't immediately renominate it a fifth time. Don't you want the articles you write to be quality? Considering that you spend a significant amount of time at GAN, don't you want to be thought of as the editor who consistently writes and nominates quality articles? The fact that you're okay with being the editor that consistently nominates poor articles baffles me. It's almost like you want to have a trail of failed GANs associated with your account. Just two weeks ago, you were close to being blocked altogether because of your editing behavior. Stop wasting everyone's time—including your own—and try and be reasonable. //Gbern3 (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If Tomcat7 is continuing with the abuse of the GAN review process, improperly or disingenuously sourcing information, was almost blocked two weeks ago, I think the proper avenue would be to see some form of punitive disciplinary sanction. This kind of behaviour is not simply going to subside--we're beyond being able to "nip it in the bud". If someone does bring this matter forward for an impartial disciplinary review, I will gladly support such an action. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. //Gbern3 (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I could reopen the RFC/U if this continues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Tomcat7 is trying too hard to win the WikiCup—the wiki suffers as a result. I just warned him against adding a music review to a GAN article, the review taken from a spam blacklist site: examiner.com. This is getting out of hand! His ambition to amass GA points is blinding him to the harmful effects. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

I am thinking it might be good to fix a minimum period between failed nominations and renoms. For example a month.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem seems to be resubmission without corrective actions when an article has been "correctly" failed. I don't have a problem with (rapid) resubmissions after corrective actions have been done on a failed article, neither do I have much of a problem with (rapid) resubmissions, with or without corrective actions, when an article has not been reviewed "correctly" against WP:WIAGA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I do see that point and I also do realize that the quickfail was perhaps too WP:POINTY, but TomCat7 has basically not responded to the concern that he is abusing the process and simply continued the same behavior of nominating translated articles without verifying the sources and renominate instantly with minor cosmetic changes. I should add that I have some concerns that TomCat7 is primarily editing with the wikicup in mind. I do think that his participation there at least provides a motive for hurrying translated GAs through the process with out due attention to sourcing and quality, and for shopping for reviewers. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My comment when an article has not been reviewed "correctly" against WP:WIAGA has not intended to be comment on any particular review, or on any particular nominator's submissions. Sometimes articles are failed by a reviewer because of redlinks, or "faults" of that nature that are not part of the review criteria and, in cases such as these, a nominator should be able to resubmit. Tomcat7 is clearly different. That editor has done numerous GAN reviews, so aught to know what a Good Article looks like. Immediately submitting (almost) every failed nomination without any changes appears to be "shopping" for passes - term used above to described these actions. Pyrotec (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not have an issue with renomination whenever changes have been made. It may take a week it may take a year for an article to reach the criteria, if a good faith effort has been made to address the issues and corrective action has been taken then there is no issue. Let's not do instruction creep, it will only hurt the editors. The problem here is specific and an unusual case. Let's not punish everyone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

First time GA reviewer, please check my work!

This is the first time I've tried doing a GA review. Could an experienced reviewer please check my work: Article is Carnotaurus, review is at Talk:Carnotaurus/GA1. Appreciated!! Zad68 17:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The article seems to be good, overall. Although, I did not perform a thorough check because of lack of time. I may do a more calmed check tomorrow. Regards. — ṞṈ 06:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Razr, it would be very much appreciated!! I'm concerned that I'm setting the bar too high, your input would really help. Cheers... Zad68 14:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I only looked over the review, not the corresponding article, but it looks very good to me. I don't think you're setting the bar too high--the grammar points you list should definitely be clarified and fixed. The only suggestion I'd make is to try to clearly differentiate things that aren't GA criteria, like WP:REPEATLINK, from those that are (though I think it's all still worth pointing out if you see it, most users will appreciate it). I found this essay very helpful for doing that in my own reviews. Thanks for your reviewing. (I've only been doing reviews myself for a short time, though, so take everything I said above with a grain of salt.) -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a good essay and thanks for the feedback. Zad68 18:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have checked again and indeed, is a good review. Good job Zad68. We are short on reviewers and your help will be much appreciated :) — ṞṈ 22:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I have gotten some good feedback here. I really have been enjoying doing GA reviews so far and I plan on doing more. Cheers... Zad68 22:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, good review. If you need help when reviewing, feel free to ping my talk page :) Razr Nation is my alt :P — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Got it! Zad68 04:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur! "Good" job! --Tito Dutta (talk)

You know all that's going to do is encourage me! Zad68 04:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises GA

Could someone have a look at the review for The Dark Knight Rises. The reviewer started this over a month ago, promising a quick finish, but then has asked that the plot section 9as the MOS limit of 700 words already) is expanded further. There have been a number of indepedent comments (including from me) on the review page giving opinions on the plot. I have posted on the reviewers talk page with a suggestion of how to proceed, but he appears to have gone awol. I'm an independent by-stander in all this (with only 3 edits on the article) and I'd be happy to take over the review to ensure it closes in a timely fashion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I would give the reviewer a little bit more time seeing as the holidays have just finished and it has been less than a week since you commented on their talk page. Ideally they will close it. If they don't the nominator can always withdraw and renominate. AIRcorn (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Aircorn. I'll keep an eye on it and see how it pans out. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Still no movement on this GA and it's now a day short of two weeks since my comment on the reviewer's talk page, with no response from the reviewer there or on the review page. I find this perplexing, especially given his first comment on the review that there would be a "definitive answer" on 4 December. I am still more than happy to pick up the review in his place. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want, I can review it this weekend. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 13:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll drop a line on the nominator's page and suggest it to them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Happy editing. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthropology?

I would suggest adding anthropology to the section named "Culture, sociology and psychology". -_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I added it and was reverted by a bot with a misleading summary.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest not doing anything until we understand what Piotrus is suggesting. Changing a topic or subtopic name can mess up the bot and cause other chaos. Piotrus, were you looking to add it to the "Includes" list under "Culture, sociology and psychology"? If you actually want to change the name of the subtopic itself, that needs to be coordinated with the person who's responsible for the GA bot, and should not be done without advanced planning. Also, discussion of the proposal would be appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. It should be uncontroversial that anthropology subjects are also part of that section and that anthropology is on footing with psychology and sociology and should be mentioned in the heading.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:Bold Doesn't apply here. This page is edited and maintained by a bot that will delete everything that is not consensually programmed to be there. Consensus and agreement must be reached here first, and after that, we tell Chris G to reprogram the bot to recognize the new section and start adding articles under the new subtopic. It cannot be done any other way. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Bold applies everywhere. Can you start discussing the proposal now rather than whether my failed attempt at editing the bot maintaioned page.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Bold applies in pages where the one who maintains it is not a bot. Bots go crazy and make a mess. I had to fix a big mess made by the bot last month because a user boldly changed the page without asking first. Now, if you believe that the new section could be useful, I won't oppose, because if a new section is needed, we will gladly add it to the list . Now, I think that before adding a new section, we have to look how many articles can fall under this new category. Anthropology seems to be a big topic, so I can support its inclusion. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You will find no such condition in WP:BOLD. IThe proposal is not for a new section, but to add "anthropology" to the header of the section that already contains anthropology subjects.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I know I won't find such condition in Bold, but practice has proven that bold edits on WP:GAN make nothing but harm to the page (and make the bot go crazy ). I don't exacly understand what do you mean. What you are proposing is to change "Culture, sociology and psychology" to "Culture, sociology, anthropology and psychology"? or something different? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is how I understand Piotrus suggestion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Good. I agree with the idea, but we need to see what other users think before adding the section. After several other users approve the idea (e.g. consensus is reached to include it), we can ask Chris G to program the bot to recognize the new section. Also, we'd have to rename the section at WP:Good articles and make the bot change the {{GA}} template on each article inside the topic to avoid confusion and bot-crazyness :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually we only really need to change the header at Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society, the talk pages all link to the main page, not individual subsections. AIRcorn (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will find it particularly controversial, and WP:BOLD is fair in principal... but the page here is designed to be maintained by a bot and altering the section headings without also fixing the bot won't get anywhere (as you found with the revert). Andrew Gray (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Some past alterations have even caused chunks of the page to disappear altogether, because the bot couldn't handle them. A bit of planning is in order. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the bot does not rely on the headers (I have made changes before that have worked fine). Sometimes it takes a few goes to make the change stick so I tried again just now. AIRcorn (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Guess not this time. Would probably be best to go through the bot owner. AIRcorn (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. We have to reach Chris for this. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saying that yes, you guys understand and seem to agree with what I meant :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Culture - remove?

Here's a further thought, and I'll elaborate on this: I am not happy with the world culture, alongside sociology, psychology and (proposed above) anthropology. Why? Well, we have a logical mismatch here: we have concept, science, science, science. Culture is studied by sociologist already, so to a big degree it is not needed anyway as long as we have sociology. Or we could change culture to cultural studies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Social sciences and society

Will comment on this soon at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to split Sports and recreation

This has been mentioned and discussed many times before, but a formal proposal to discuss the change hasn't been made in the past. So, here it goes: Should the Sports and recreation section be split into Sports and recreation? This is usually the section with the higher number of nominees and several users have agreed that some of the topics there shouldn't be put together (example: football events and amusement parks). So, should they be split?

• Yes as proposer. The section has a high amout of subtopics that should be split into the two separate sections. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree that this section should be split, but we really need to split it into roughly evenly sized pieces. There is no point just pruning two or three entries from the section. A good way to judge the use is to examine the Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation page. There are 60 "recreation" articles rated good compared to approximately 1500 "sports" ones. This split therefore would not address the issue of having a long sports section. AIRcorn (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You might be better to divide along Football sports (Association, American, Rugby, Australian), sports involving a ball and stick/bat -is there a overarching name for these sports- (baseball, cricket, hockey, golf) and other sports and recreational activities. AIRcorn (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with AIRcorn's idea. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I like this idea, as my recent role-playing game GAN entry looks really weird in a sea of sports articles. I have a suggestion for a very straightforward three-way split: team sports, individual sports, and recreation. The third section would be a lot smaller, but I think that would be a good starting point for a split. Later, it could be fine-tuned with more splits, if necessary. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  Oh, and to avoid rare, but potential overlap between the first two sections, there could also be an athletes section. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That could work, although I fear that team sports would still predominate. I would not worry too much about the athletes that do both as the links to the GA page below the heading will still remain the same (for example I would put tennis under individual sports - even though some athletes predominately play doubles). AIRcorn (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, maybe there wouldn't be as much overlap as I'd thought. I agree with your tennis example. And the team vs individual split can be a simple starting point, making it easier to determine another split point with more precision later on. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Bot going haywire

Did someone do a reorg of the subcats without informing the bot owner? The bot is again going haywire (repeating announcements of new articles and such).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me some thing not caused by the GAN page. The last person to edit it was Aircorn and the bot reverted his addition. I will follow the bot's edits to see.... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's not in the right subtopic, yeah the bot doesn't know how to parse it. I went and put it in the right one. That is admittedly confusing though, that media and drama is right but the longer name confuses it... Wizardman 17:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed the title so it matches the bots version and it seems to have stuck. The problem now is that we have two media and drama headings so the links will not know which one to go for. It is probably only a minor inconvenience and could be solved by changing the top "Media and Drama" heading to "Film, Television and other Media" or something similar. AIRcorn (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dilemma and question

Hi all, am reviewing United States v. Jackalow , which has been languishing since August or September. Most of it is pretty good, but the prose has some clunkiness and I have some minor issues with the footnote formatting and completeness of citations; all easily fixable stuff, at least for someone with access to the source material. However, the lead editor now appears to be semi-retired and has not responded to two of my messages nor on the GA review page. Not sure what to do: Should I just dive in and do the editing I think is needed (seems to be no other content editor on the page, someone else had a few edits, but I don't think they had the access to content) and let the citations go (i.e. are they good enough for GA, even if not quite to FA level?) or should I fail it due to inaction on the part of the editor? Or should I fix and ask someone else to finish the review as I'd then be "involved?" I suppose I could also email the editor, but not sure... this article is soooo close, I don't really want to fail it. Montanabw^(talk) 17:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that it is very close, and that after fixing what you can fix, it can be promoted, then do so. You won't be involved unless the changes you do are major ones :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally I stay out of editing GA candidates I'm reviewing unless it's on hold and one or two really minor things stop it from passing. I've had a quick look through the review and I think your sticking point is where you think the first paragraph of "Background' wants rewriting, but you can't do it personally due to not having the sources to hand. In your situation, I would put out a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases to see if anyone else can help. Don't forget, you don't have to hold anyone to 7 days if a review is "on hold", it can stay there indefinitely if you believe the problems are fixable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not recommend leaving a review on hold indefinitely, that would just result in a lot of stale reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ritche: If the rewritings are major (more than some minor prose issues and stuff) then it's best not to do it yourself and ask for help. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to confuse you by disagreeing slightly with the above. The aim is to get the article up to GA so if it is close and you are confident you can get it there then I say go for it. You shouldn't feel obliged to though and just failing the article due to a lack of a response is perfectly fine. If you are concerned that your edits would make you involved then you can always ask for a second opinion. Basically, all your options mentioned are valid. I have asked at Wikiprojects pages before and got a good response if you haven't done so already. AIRcorn (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason I recommended the course of action I did is because Montanabw can't do the work he wants to get the article to GA status himself. When I said you could leave GA reviews for longer than 7 days, obviously that's assuming common sense that both parties are comfortable with it and see a likelihood of passing - which certainly isn't the case with Talk:Caerphilly Castle/GA1 below. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I'll hit the wikiproject first and see if I can get some helpers. I think some of the prose that's bugging me can be tweaked without the sources, and mypost here seems to have attracted a couple outside editors already. Good thoughts, all, and thank you! Montanabw^(talk) 00:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

WT:Requests_for_comment/Article_feedback#PR, FAC and GAN

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Review...

Hi. I left a message a week or so back about the review at Talk:Caerphilly Castle/GA1, which has been untouched since 17 December, a month ago. I've left messages with the reviewer, but had no luck. Is there any chance that the review could be opened up again? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• The reviewer, Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) is still around, but it seems they've got a number of outstanding GA reviews, as someone's asked them directly about it on their talk page. Since the review has done almost nothing other to confirm a lack of edit wars, I would throw the rulebook out of the window and boldly get someone to take it over. Having a quick look through the article, it seems there are a lot of citations to Renn (2002), so I'd hope whoever picks it up has got that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Renn's one of the standard works for the castle, but I don't think there's an on-line version. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll give it 24 hours to see if the user responds to me. If not I'll just delete them all and get new reviewers for them. Wizardman 19:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleted all of them. It's things like this that kill my editing mood, I swear... that's why you don't claim a crapload of articles, just one or tw at a time until you at least start the damn things. Wizardman 04:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Wiz; taking more articles you are willing/able to review prevents other users to review them and harms the project. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wiz. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Tulsidas/GA1

User:Chantoke was going to review the article seems to have disappeared from the face of the world (read Wikipedia). Getting " User account "Chantoke" is not registered. ... " message. Can someone please delete the GA page so that a new reviewer can take over. Thanks. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I tagged it for speedy-delete under "G6" -- Housekeeping. I can remove the GA tag from the article Talk page but I don't know if that'll mess up the bot. Zad68 19:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done OK the GA page has been deleted and I removed the Talk page tag, I think that's all that's needed, hopefully the bot will figure it out. Zad68 19:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Reinstated the tag as I still want it to be reviewed for GA. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 02:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Religious buildings in GAN

I observed many religious buildings like temples, mosques and churches are inaccurately added in Religion in WP:GA. They should be grouped under Art and architecture. So have added a note in the GAn section of religion. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope the bot not to revert your changes, he has a very OWNish behaviour with the page :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Review shopping

Every once in a while I review an article just because I want to learn about the subject and a doing a review gives me a chance to read it in depth. This of course can be a pain to experts on a subject who are trying to get it promoted. Thus, I admit that I might be the problem with this reveiw. However, I think an admin with access should review this. The edit history at Talk:Veganism suggests that there was some sort of review initiated and then erased on December 16. I am curious about this because of January 19 and January 20 edits by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs). I should note that this is a high quality article that does not need to be shopped to get it promoted, but I want to know what is going on with this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

On the 16th the review page was initiated by an IP, and deleted later that same day. Nothing of substance in the deleted edits. Why SV withdrew it I have no idea, that seems strange to me. If she wants to further tweak it fine, but if it's near GA status I don't see what harm the review was doing. Wizardman 01:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Just checking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

This page's FAQ did not help me, so I'll ask here: what does "(Reviews: [number])" mean? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It means the number of reviews done the by nominator of that article. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a related question: where does this information come from? For instance, my review count lists more reviews than I think I have done. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's done by a bot (GA bot updates User:GA bot/Stats) but the process is, or appears to be, undocumented; and I have the exact opposite problem to you, i.e. I have an undercount. I initially thought that the count was determined by the number of (foo/GAx) review pages created, but at that time I was both creating the review pages and transcluding them onto the articles' talkpage pages rather than waiting for the bot to do it. The number of the review pages (it was 13) that I'd transcluded in given period matched my "undercount" for that period. So, I think that the bot counts the number of review pages related to a particular editor that it transcludes onto article talkpages. Pyrotec (talk) 12:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. Having been reviewing before the introduction of the bot, I thought it was quite a good development but presumed that the rationale for it was buried under piles of discussion and never bothered to look. Wonder if anyone else can enlighten us? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Article nominated by a non-contributor

Hi, I'm in the process of reviewing The Jazz Singer and judging from the page stats the nominator has made no contributions to the page. The article's primary editor has been inactive on Wikipedia since July, and has not been contacted about the GAN. I've only started reviewing Good Article nominees recently, so I would like to know the appropriate line of action to take. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement for the main contributors to nominate the article or even be notified (although it has recently become recommended that they are notified). The nominator seems to have a few reviews under his belt so you should be fine reviewing it like normal. My only concern would be whether they had access to the books the article is based on to answer or fix any queries you might have. AIRcorn (talk) 09:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

French-to-English "Bon Article"

I'm reviewing Paul Michaux at the moment, which is a translation of a GA from fr.wikipedia. All of the main sources are French books to which I don't have access. (As a side note, the translator/nominator has responded to requests for further information by deleting rather than clarifying/expanding sentences in question, which concerns me that she/he doesn't have access to them either.) How should I double-check for accuracy/copyvio? Ask the nominator for a few scans, hand this off to another reviewer, or trust that the French wiki has adequately checked these things on their end? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I advise asking a French-speaking editor to take a look. I would myself, but I'm not confident enough in my French to assist. I don't think I would fully trust French wiki, but that's just me.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have clarified. I do read French, it's just that none of the main sources are online or in my library. FWIW, I may be looking in the wrong place--I'm not sure of their set-up--but the review of the article on fr.wiki seems rather thin; see Section 5, "Paul Michaux". -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, well, hmm... Do you have any particular reason to question the sources? If not, then I guess it's fine.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it all seems plausible, and to jibe with the one source that is available. I'll go ahead and pass it then if all other issues get cleaned up. Thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to have Classical music separate

After reviewing BWV 40, the question came up where to list it in Music. I propose to have a new section Classical music, because a Bach cantata and other articles don't fit well in Albums or Songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

When I passed one of the Bach pieces, I placed it under "Recordings, compositions and performances"; it certainly meets the "compositions" part. That could probably be subdivided though. I believe that there was a suggestion to split albums based on years, so just "compositions" could be kept as a section to itself. GRAPPLE X 17:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to create a new subsection here unless it is going to be used quite a bit. Are there enough classical music articles to justify a new section (Category:GA-Class Classical music articles is empty which seems a little strange). Creating extra subsections at Wikipedia:Good articles/Music would be fine though. AIRcorn (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See Category:GA-Class Composers articles for GA-class articles related to classical music. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed (and passed) three musicals article of that "type" (perhaps more) that could be put into Category:GA-Class Classical music articles, but they appear in the Category:GA-Class Opera articles. I also reviewed and passed Symphony No. 5 (Nielsen) that only appears in Category:WikiProject Classical music articles as there seems to be no "class-category" assigned to that wikproject. To me, I think the "problem of categorisation" needs to be considered, so that such GA-class article are more visible. Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A wonderfully thorough review / Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 2)/GA1

Or what? The article itself contains such prose delights as "Ed is off goofing around" and "some misinformed out-of-towner's [sic] must have lost their way". Reviewer's edit count is 3. --Stfg (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious that the reviewers first edit was creating the review. Even more so, it's their only edits.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we restrict opening GAR pages to auto/confirmed users? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Lately, we've been seeing a lot of first edits being GA reviews.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I hate to bite the new editors at Wikipedia, but does this review of Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 2) really appropriate for its first edit. The reviewer, who passed the article with no comments or concerns, did not edit once before that, so it could be a sockpuppet of the nominator, Khanassassin (talk · contribs). How would a user find that article and review it as a first contribution, and, if not, does the new user have an understanding of the good article criteria and policy? I need help here to find out if the page requires another reviewer to check it out. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 16:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

See previous section. I reckon it does need anther review. --Stfg (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Khanassassin is an editor in good standing; I would confidently wager it's not a sockpuppet. It could be someone who is just a fan of the series, went to the talk page, and decided it was a "good" article without understanding the normal WP:GAN procedure, and so created an account to pass it. Still, it probably needs a more in-depth review. I combined these sections for ease. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's what seems most likely. It would be very odd of Khanassassin to suddenly game the system after he's written several good articles that were reviewed by good reviewers. If anyone can volunteer their time towards a reassessment of the nomination, it would be appreciated. I don't have time right now. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it still believe it is a sockpuppet. Please notice that the review at Talk:Ed, Edd n Eddy (season 2)/GA1 ("Congrats, it's a Pass! :-D") is very similar as a review Khanassassin (talk · contribs)} provided at Talk:Awake (TV series)/GA1 ("It's a Pass") with the same grammar and such. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 16:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, start an SPI, but I will eat my virtual hat if it is a sockpuppet. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You its funny seeing this after asking an admin to look into it. But I'm with Torchiest on this being a sock. Just doesn't seem like the type of editor to do so. GamerPro64 16:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto with the hat consumption, it's an established user. Why not leave him a message? Jebus989^✰ 16:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, the new user did not add it to the appropriate GA page afterwards. Suggests to me a new user rather than a sock, but could be either. Wizardman 16:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I notified both users. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree it the user is a well established contributor who has a number of accomplishments, but it just seems to be a huge coincidence that a new user would know so much at the good article process, and most of its concepts, while used the same degree of grammar and wording. I might try to start a sockpuppet investigation just to ensure Khanassassin (talk · contribs) is not using the new editor as a sockpuppet and gaming the system. I am a huge fan of their edits and achievements, but it does seem to be a bit awkward. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 23:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, slow down. I got my first GA ever reviewed by a newbie how was a fan of the song and noone argued it was a sockpuppet of me. I think this is the same case for Khanassassin, and an SPI will only shoot back to you if it returns a false positive. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The nom didn't reply to the review until two hours later. Till 01:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, it's me, Khanassassin. I had a suspicion this wasn't a legit review, but I was still happy it passed. :) I actually agree with Brandley on this, I always use the "It's a Pass!" at the end of my reviews... Perhaps the reviewer saw one of my reviews and went trolling around on my account, and made a review or something? Heh- But is there a way that you can check my IP and his or something to confirm it's not me, perhaps? I think it's just a little trolling on Wikipedia, nothing serious. You can re-review the article, that's actually something I'd prefer. :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 08:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the situation in a calm manner. I believe that your are not a sockpuppet of the reviewer, but I stand by my above comments. There is a process that can ensure users are not sockpuppets, which are checkusers who have access to your and the other editors IP addresses, but this is usually only used if necessary based on the problem at a sockpuppet investigation. A re-review will be required probably. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 08:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I originally intended to come here and curse everyone the hell out, but decided that a calm reaction would be better, hehe. Joking. Like I said, I would appreciate a nice review, which would increase my chances of FAC nomination, stating actual issues, instead of a skim-through review. Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 08:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the calm reaction. With all due respect to TBrandley, accusations of socking should not be made lightly, particularly against good editors who have already given ample evidence of not indulging in such behaviours. Assume the least worst, not the most worst. In this case, it seems far more likely to be a case of (possibly youthful) over-enthusiasm and incompetence by the reviewer. --Stfg (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I expressed my concerns at this talk page, assumed good faith, tried to act lightly, but sorry if it was a bit harsh, obtained a calm reaction, and it appears most of the questions have been addressed, other than the re-review which I would be willing to provide. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 11:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be a happy for a review from you. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 11:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What is most appropriate subject?

Last month an article I nominated, history of hip-hop dance, was promoted to GA-class and it's currently listed under North American history because when I nominated it, I listed it as a history-related GAN. On the talk page, the reviewer suggested that it be listed under culture, society, and psychology (I'm assuming in the cultural studies subsection). After thinking about it, I'm leaning toward putting it under theatre, dance, and opera, but at this point, I don't know which one would be the most appropriate subject/section because the article can reasonably go under all of them. Any suggestions? //Gbern3 (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest Wikipedia:Good articles/Music#Genres, styles and music eras. AIRcorn (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)::Forget that, use the theatre dance and opera one. AIRcorn (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was leaning toward. I was really confused when I first saw that you recommended a music category, but I figured I would wait for other comments before chiming in. //Gbern3 (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I misread it (missed the word dance). AIRcorn (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate GAN section advice needed

Hi! I plan to nominate Split Agreement for a GA review today, but I'm unsure if it should be listed at "War and military" as it is a joint defence agreement or should it be listed at "Politics and government" as it was a political event. Could anyone offer an advice?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, another look at the question makes quite clear that a political event goes into the politics.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. As a political event, it should go under Politics. Regards. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 01:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Time for the next RFC

As I stated in November, I am planning a new RFC this year. Before the main RFC, I'd like to make a special page where proposals to replace the backlog elimination drives will be submitted. Anyone can submit a proposal that will be tweaked and evaluated by community before being formally presented in the RFC. With this, we expect to find a solution to the constant problem of having a big backlog and the lack of new reviewers. I would like to personally encourage every user with a bright idea in mind to post it on the correspondent page starting February 1. I will be designing and posting here the page which will be used on January 31. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Peer review has a bit on their instructions that encourages you to offer a peer review to someone else for each one you ask for. So when I asked for a Peer Review of my COI work, I found a newbie editor working on their first article and tried to help them out.

Of course there's no need to keep score or anything, but adding something like that in the GAN instructions could help. CorporateM (Talk) 23:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Archie McKellar

Can anyone tell me the procedure for one reviewer taking over from another? On the above I have run into an account user who has just (26 Jan) joined wikipedia. Their requests on this article are beyond contempt, and are contrary to how such an article is handled at review. It is possible that this user is a troll. I have removed their 'review' - at worst a series of bizarre requests by a new, thus incompetent person, or at worst someone who is making absurd demands deliberately. I have a very experienced editor, one who is accustomed to writing and authoring this type of article lined up to take over. Dapi89 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Scrub that bit about the troll. He is trying to review other articles. From what I can gather he just doesn't know what he is doing. Dapi89 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This is far from the worst review I have ever seen. We are short of reviewers so labeling a new one a troll or incompetent is hardly helping the situation. The review appears to be done in good faith so your options are to withdraw it and renominate, work with the reviewer to resolve the issues or refuse to make the changes and let them fail it (and then renominate). You can't just blank a review because you don't like it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This about trying to fail an article based on points that are unsound. Other articles have passed with their inclusion - reviews done by experienced editors. 12:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Aircorn. Now I know not to review your articles with the attitude you showed there. Wizardman 23:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good. If you think his review was remotley sensible I wouldn't want you to review them either. So we can agree there. Dapi89 (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. We don't bite the newcomers and splash out the "not welcomed" and "troll" doors just because we are not under an agreement with the reviewer; we teach them. We are trying to find a way to get new reviewers to the GAN process and I think that this kind of attitude is inappropriate and we cannot tolerate it. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 02:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

In case you hadn't notice, it was withdrawn - see above. Dapi89 (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, Retrolord indeed has not always followed the criteria when reviewing articles - Talk:Injection molding/GA1 - but I would say blanking a review is over-the-top, and that it's no reason to WP:BITE him. Calling him "incompetant" is bordering on a personal attack - and is not likely to solve any issues with him.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I must object to being labelled as "incompetent" by Dapi89. I believe the article as it stands has numerous issues, the main one being the excessive detail the article goes into. I believe my claims are valid but if any other reviewer wishes to pass the article in it's current form then I won't protest, I am afterall, "new, thus incompetent". Retrolord (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You are too inexperienced for an article like this. It is better if you do sit it out. I don't review articles in general because I too am incompetent. I could review articles on things I know about; but even then I don't. Erich Hartmann you will note is one of my G.As - per your comment on my talk page. Kinda ironic isn't it Retro? Dapi89 (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As a result of your persistant personal attacks, despite warnings, I have been forced to file a request for dispute resolution. Furthermore, while I do not know what "you will not is one of my G.As" means, I assume you are exerting ownership over the article. On Wikipedia, no one owns articles. Please renominate your article and have it reviewed by someone other than that misterbee1966 user, who you "lined up" personally to review your article, there is no need for cronyism here. I would be suprised if the article passed in it's current form, the Erich Hartmann article is an example of a well written GA, Archie McKeller, however, is not. Retrolord (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Do what you like, I'm not interested in time wasting. For me, wikpedia is about adding content, not getting embroiled in long-running, energy sapping, and pointless arguments with people like you.

Ownership? Please. Technically you don't have a leg to stand on. And speaking of being insulting; don't assume anything about me, and articles you have never laid eyes on before. Take a look at my front page - it will give you an indication I do know what i'm talking about.

BTW it is "note" not "not".

Lastly, I'm allowed to criticise your judgement if I see fit. It is not an attack. You are not in position to review articles yet as is evident in the frustration shown on just about everyone you've tried with.

Anyway, don't concern yourself with me or Misterbee, and I hope we'll avoid each other from now on. Good day and goodbye. Dapi89 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Dapi, do I have to warn you about personal attacks? I guess that you understand that such comments won't be tolerated by community. Refrain yourself from this type of behaviour please, as it is not productive, but disruptive. Regards. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 19:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to look at the video games queue to see what happens to nominators who are rude and unwilling to communicate with reviewers. AIRcorn (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins blocked him for personal attacks so... — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 20:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

COI GANs

I'm working on some of my first GAs. (2 down so far and five in the queue on a volunteer basis) I've started submitting some of my COI works for GA review. But it will be very difficult to bring the article up to GA using {{request edit}} and not being able to make incremental improvements.

I was curious how editors would feel about me asking for GA reviews in draft space, so I can edit the draft freely, then request a merge to article-space after it's been found to meet the GA criteria.

I know that's weird, but seems like the only practical way to do it. So the GA project page would read there was a nomination from User:CorporateM/RTI International for example. CorporateM (Talk) 23:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to review GACs, there is always a great need for that.

If for whatever reason you feel that you cannot make edits to an article directly, in article space, in my opinion submitting it for GA would not be appropriate. The task of being a reviewer is already complex enough, as illustrated by the perpetual backlog. -Pete (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

True. It does offer a wrinkle for both parties. It would probably be only at first, because eventually I'll be able to churn out GAs that don't require any significant changes. Maybe I'll just wing it and see what's best for each one. CorporateM (Talk) 14:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Burger King franchises

Hello, The reviewer who started this is unsure on how to proceed. I have complied with his requests regarding changes and cleanup, but he feels that he needs a second look by another reviewer. Could some one come in and take a look so I can get this closed? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Query about discussing quick-failed article

I was wondering if anyone could help me here, as Wikipedia:Good article reassessment seems more relevant for Good Articles under consideration for delisting. I nominated At My Most Beautiful, and today it was reviewed, but it was quick-failed in what feels to me like a rather sparse review. Some of the objections strike me as odd, ie. "Reference #13 is not a reliable source and not even cited correctly" (it's a Irish music chart archive sponsored by the Irish Recorded Music Association, and you can't directly cite the result page, hence the instructions in the footnote), "In addition to that many of the information relies heavily on the books cited" (this is from a total of four books cited, three of which are pretty thorough biographies), and "The article needs to be expanded much more to attain an Good Article status" (no specifics are given). If I feel the review was insufficient, what's the best course of action to take? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The reviewer appears to have quickfailed without any reference to the quick fail criteria, none of which seem to apply here. (I suppose "I'm not entirely convinced the article keeps a neutral point" could be interpreted as QF4, "The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way", but surely at least one example needs to be given.) So I'd agree with you that the review should be ignored/nullified. Not sure how that works procedurally, though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I pinged the reviewer (Jayjay) to notify her/him of the discussion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed this problem too, where an article was quick-failed with only vague reasons. The reviewer refused to provide anything specific after repeated appeals. Seems entirely arbitrary. The article's nominator (not me), became frustrated at the lack of response and re-nominated the article. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I required to give them time to fix the issues? Does anyone feel that my review was wrong, if so I can change it. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is the whole point of the review. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay well I've asked for second opinion on some of the things. I apologize I'm still learning JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No. There is no requirement to hold the article. If you think it is a long way from the criteria you can review it and then fail it. This is different from a quick fail. AIRcorn (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the review though it is hard to see why exactly it was failed. You would be fine failing it for neutrality if you gave a couple of examples or at least a bit more information. The nominator needs to know what to fix and I don't think they will from reading that review. AIRcorn (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two ways an article can be failed immediately: a Quick Fail and an Immediate Fail.

• For a QF, there are specific criteria that, once one is met, there is no need for further review of the article.
• For an IF, the article is reviewed as normal, but the reviewer feels that the article is too far from meeting the GA Criteria to warrant taking the time for a hold period.

Too often the two similar actions are confused or conflated with each other. Both result in failure to promote without any hold period, but one requires a review citing examples of specific deficienceys, which isn't "quick" to do. Imzadi 1979 → 21:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am drafting a proposal at WT:GACR#Quickfailing with the aim of trying to make this simpler. It would basically depreciate the quickfail to an instant fail (except for the cleanup tags and copyvios). The thinking is that the other criteria are just extensions of the existing criteria anyway. See Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Alternative version-1 for a mock up. AIRcorn (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, JayJay, for my confusion about how this worked! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Good article statistics

Hi. You might be interested in User:The ed17/Good articles by wiki text and User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I took out Perumkunnil Junction from User:The ed17/Good articles by wiki text because it was tagged by a user without undergoing a review. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I have questioned the notability of some of the shorter road articles before and know that there is precedent for keeping them, but wouldn't those Texas Recreational Road ones be better merged into List of Recreational Roads in Texas. AIRcorn (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree... aside from the long one, there's just one road above four miles long. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Tagged. Proposal can be found List of Recreational Roads in Texas#Merger proposal AIRcorn (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Medal Of Honor GAR

Hi everyone. I conducted a review of this article a while ago and passed it. I followed all the steps on the page but the article is still on the project page listed as on review. I assume either I or GA bot made a mistake. If anyone could provide some insight this would be appreciated.

Thanks. Retrolord (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

G'day, I believe the issue was rectified with this edit: [24] The issue appears to have been the banner that was posted on the article talk page which still said "status=on review". Anyway, the bot appears to have removed it from the GAN list now with this edit: [25] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Australian Rupert bet me to it.[26] It looks like you just forgot to remove the nomination banner. AIRcorn (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Aircorn, sorry for posting over the top of your comment. For some reason it didn't appear until after I posted. I will have to clean out my cache. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

She'll be right. AIRcorn (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Question on a review

Hey all! So, a few days ago, the nomination for Loring Air Force Base was failed here because it supposedly relied too much on a single source. I use the source (a government one, although I didn't confirm it until an hour ago) for the early history of the base, but I have 35 other sources as well, so I find it moot. Can the review be reopened, as I would like to not have to wait a month to do this all over again, since nothing will likely change (it's the best and only source out there, anyways). Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Kevin. This was a mistake on my part. I'd support reopening the review as you said. Retrolord (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Retrolord. The easiest way is probably to delete your review, which will put it back into the queue. As you are the only editor to the page you can simply put a {{db-self}} on it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. Fixed the Fishbow one too; remember not so subst: the GA template on the main talk page. Wizardman 21:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC on quickfail criteria

Opened at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#RFC: New wording of the quickfail criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation overkill

I have looked through all of the Good article criteria, including all the references to the manual of style, and no where in there can I find anything that prohibits the excessive use of citations. I believe that this is a shortcoming with the criteria and that it should be addressed.

I raise this now as I currently reviewing an article where i believe this is a problem, however, I am unsure what criteria this would fall under.

Thankyou. Retrolord (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In my experience it suggests that original research may be involved. A common one is "Such and such is a well known actor/explorer/plumber" with a half dozen citations just saying that they are a actor/explorer/plumber. Basically they are using original research to say that something is well known just by adding lots of cites, when they really need one decent one saying that they are "well known". For an example see this. I don't think there is anything in the criteria specifically forbidding overcites, but you can make a suggestion during the review that they be trimmed. You might want to at least inquire as to why so many are needed. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons to have multiple citations (see the note in Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948). AIRcorn (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review request

I've been working on the article for the fictional character, Sharon Newman, for over a year (since December 2011). I first nominated it last July. It got picked up in October by two editors. One said they would do half, and the other would do the last half after they finished. But none of them finished anything and by December, I was getting discouraged, considering they continually told me they would "have a look at it" and give it a couple of points. I am really committed to this article and swiftly fix up GA inquiries left, which there were little of. I understand people are busy, but I wasn't happy. I had an admin close this and I nominated it again. It's a very long article but I'm hoping someone, preferably who has any experience with editing fictional articles, would consider reviewing it. I'm very keen on getting it to GA. Arre 05:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Time for a new Sweep?

We can all agree that the GA process has changed since the last Sweeps. And after the Bicholim conflict incident and the ousting of Legolas2186, I think there should be another round of Sweeps to not only check the quality of Good Articles but to check to see if the articles aren't fruadulent. That may sound extreme at first but personally I think that if we do this we can take care of hoaxes that tarnish the websites good name. GamerPro64 15:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure if there are enough participants to make this realistic. The last sweeps looked at less than 3,000 articles and took 3 years. There are now over 16,500 GAs. Based on that time frame, a new sweeps wouldn't be completed until 2028. Perhaps a partial sweeps that starts by only looking at articles promoted in 2008 and 2009 (the two years after the articles that were checked in the previous sweeps)? This would still be a significant number of articles, but would be more manageable... Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I should have mentioned that the sweeps should probably start by having articles before 31 December 2009 and after 26 August 2007 be swept first. Then another one from January 1st 2010 to December 31st 2011. GamerPro64 16:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What kind of re-check are you imagining? I may be misunderstanding the Legolas situation, but it seems from the clean-up page that Legolas forged one or several quotations in many of the articles he nominated. Unfortunately, many GAs have more than 100 citations, and a sweep would have to be massively rigorous to catch frauds on Legolas's subtle scale: checking every single source, and getting someone to check offline copies of every book or article not available through Google. I don't know that this is a feasible plan, or if feasible, that it would be a good use of many thousand volunteer hours. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The standard re-check of quality, just like the previous Sweeps program. This initiative is designed to remove all those articles that do not meet the GA criteria anymore. We don't need to check all and each one of the citations to find every detail, this is just a procedural en masse reassessment of good articles promoted between a selected timespan. We can even do four Sweeps rounds: 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Each year has around 1200 articles promoted. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm probably putting too much emphasis on these hoaxes thing. I just think that there should be another round of Sweeps to follow. And there may be a possibility that one of the articles may be a hoax. And if we're talking about volunteer hours, the first Sweep lasted for two and a half years. It took awhile but it was accomplished. GamerPro64 19:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A sweep on Legolas's articles due to the issues in the sources would be fair enough. That being said, we don't have the manpower for another sweep, even if it was limited. I'd sooner do a sweep of 2004-05 FAs to make sure those are up to date first, actually. Wizardman 02:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A specific doublecheck of Legolas's GAs makes sense to me, too. There's a page going for it at here if editors want to coordinate efforts with the check already in progress. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, please. I was going to propose this previously as various articles that were passed years ago don't appear to meet the criteria (because they have deteriorated etc.), and as the proposer states, there are various underpinning issues that may exist such as hoaxes/fabrication of sources. Although probably not for the articles that were listed recently (recently being in the last...2-3 years?) Till 14:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
• It seems a smarter way to do this is to start with a random sample, say 100+ articles re-evaluated possible by multiple eyes, then based on those preliminary results we could consider doing a full sweep. For example, if <5 of the 100 was delisted, maybe time could be better spent elsewhere, but if, say, 30+ were delisted it's probably time to go over all those not covered in the first sweep. Of course it would be good if we agreed the bounds before sampling Jebus989^✰ 15:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  How about samples from different topics? For example, we review a sample of music GAs and a sample of video games, media and drama, etc. We'd get a better idea of where to check more thoroughly. Of course this approach is a little tedious. Please share thoughts. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  Personally I think that's a great idea Jebus989^✰ 23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Update: I got a bot to make a list of all promoted articles, separated by year and month. We can use this to have a slow motion constant Sweeps program which will be held in phases. Phase one: August 2007-December 2008 promotions / P2: All 2009 / P3: All 2010. 2011 and 2012 are of good quality, so that is not a priority. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Personally I would use the the Good article cleanup listing as a starting point. I think we can realistically get all the ones that have been tagged 2012 or older swept. You have to be careful as some of the tags are not really relevant (Missing coordinates, missing person data, dead links etc). Also doing a sweep could place more pressure on the GAR process so will require more eyes there (it needs more eyes anyway). AIRcorn (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• That would also help. Anyways, the lists are done: 2005-07 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010. Big lists indeed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• That seems daunting. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah :/ I have partial sweeps in mind. Like a sweep only for 2008. Then, when it's finished, another sweep for 2009 some months later. And then, when finished, 2010. It's a big plan that might take a looong time to do, but I think we have no hurries and it can be done calmly. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Someone could make a smarter list, i.e. prioritise pages with lots of edits since promotion, or those where the review was very short, or if the page size has drastically changed, as well as those with the most problem tags. These factors (and maybes others I can't think of) could be combined to get a short list of articles which very likely need a fixup or delisting. I'm not against people doing everything but I think there are smarter ways to go about it Jebus989^✰ 23:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think those are all very valid points. It makes sense that the articles with the most edits since promotion, biggest change in page size, most clean-up tags, etc. are probably the ones that need the most attention. Aircorn (talk · contribs) brings up a good point too. The GA clean-up listing is already available. //Gbern3 (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• A few of us contributing to this page did contribute to helping to reviewing GA during Sweeps. As can been seen here it sweep took three years to do 2808 articles. This list has nearly twice that number, so based on past experience that's six years work. We also appear to giving a common message that we doubt that the manpower exists to run a sweep. Pyrotec (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• So what you're saying is that there's a high chance another Sweep will be unlikely anytime soon. GamerPro64 01:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• We have the manpower. Also, this is not a timed drive. We can last for a year or more. I planned this to start on February 15, 2013 (or close) and finish on December 15, 2014 only for the 2008-2009 Sweeps (amd maybe 2010, which will be the last one left). This is a long work and we have no rush. I, sadly, couldn't participate in the previous Sweeps program and I will do my best on this one. And well, we have Wizardman, Status, Till, myself, Pyrotec, Aircorn, Rschen, GamePro, Torchiest and several other users I know will be willing to participate and that I'm not mentioning here. Additionally, I think that we should hold a permanent Sweeps program to keep our older-than-three-years good articles checked. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 02:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign my comment above, so I will repeat what I stated above. The last sweep took three years to cover 2,808 articles and in total 54 reviewers signed up to it. I did "only" 46 sweep reviews and Wizardman did slight more (53 sweep reviews). Several editors did between one hundred and two hundred sweep reviews each, one editor (Malleus Fatuorum) did over 320 sweep reviews and another one (now inactive) did over 600 hundred sweep reviews. So just two editors did roughly one third of the work. The list in question that is suggested as a work list states "5,325 (articles) or 31.9 % are marked for cleanup, with 8,827 issues in total". If it is being suggested that that number of sweep reviews can be done in one year, or more, on top of the existing GAN reviews (and any backlog drives), I would caution that such a view appears to be unrealistic based on past experiences. The best guess is probably six years to do such as sweep. I'd suggest looking at User:GA bot/Stats, I'm the third one down and I started my first GAN review, in September 2008 and I'm still doing them but I took a six-month break, Wizardman has done more reviews than I have and he started before me. Jezhotwells, has the most reviews on that list, he started after me and now appears to be inactive as an editor/reviewer but he could do a large number of reviews (about 90) during the month-long backlog drives. Malleus Fatuorum was doing GAN reviews a long time before me, his are very thorough, more than mine. Pyrotec (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not all the tagged ones in the cleanup list are relevant. I asked the toolserver guys if they could remove some, but it is not possible to do so for individual wikiprojects. I made a list of the ones that I thought were relevant to the WP:GACR at User:Aircorn/sandbox. Ones with multiple tags appear more than once and I only included ones tagged up until 2012. There are 1407 articles on that list, with many of them just with single {{cn}} tags. I am personally working my way through them slowly, but it could be a good place for others to start. I grouped them into their WP:GA categories so members interested in a particular project can find ones needing cleanup that they may be interested in. AIRcorn (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Malleus is retired too by the way. It's a lot easier to get overexcited and say "let's do another round!" than it is to actually cover X thousand articles, so I don't think this project should be taken on too lightly Jebus989^✰ 22:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the list relevant and inclusive, as it only covers GAs that are tagged? Most of the tags are 2011/12 but some go back to 2009/08, but not many. There may well be GAs that need to be re-evaluated that don't have tags - so they will not appear in that list. The big fraudulent article gained GA in (I think October 2007) so it just missed the Sweeps by a few months and just sat there for five years unchallenged. I agree that articles on the list should be re-evaluated, but I'm concerned that it might not be sufficient to pick up other GAs that need work to bring them back up to standard. Pyrotec (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No it will only pick up those that have been tagged. Not only that, but some of the tags are improperly placed, hard to solve (too technical ones, or missing page numbers for instance) or only require an easy fix (simply removing unsourced statements). For a few articles it can be quite hard to even find the tag. However, I have still delisted probably a dozen using the cleanup list and resolved the issue somehow on many more.

I think the unpopular Good articles are the ones most likely to be overlooked. If not many people look at an article after it is listed there will be no one to tag it or put it up for reassessment. Is there an easy way to order good aticles by page view? That could give us some good candidates to a check. AIRcorn (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Got hold of this short list (haven't looked at any yet). AIRcorn (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering what sort of relevance this has to the discussion, since GA has nothing to do with popularity. --Rschen7754 00:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking that if not many people view an article there is less chance that someone will notice something wrong with it. I spend a bit of time at WP:GAR and the only ones that seem to get nominated there are popular articles. It doesn't seem to have worked anyway as after a quick glance at the top ones, apart from the first which is a list and one with a short lead that can be resolved pretty easily they all look in good shape. I guess if there are less readers then there are also less potential editors coming along and changing things. AIRcorn (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that some editors support the idea of a sweeps. On that basis, since the last sweeps was run on GA articles listed before 26 August 2007, I suggest that those editors who wish to do so run a sweeps project on all articles newly awarded GA status within the period 26 August 2007 to 31 December 2007. Note: last time round it was considered that there was no need to review articles that subsequently lost GA status and/or became FAs, that still remains valid. That is approximately a trial on three-month's worth of GAs and we can compare it against Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps/Running total so that will give a direct measure of interest and the time needed to complete a full sweep up to 31 December 2012. In terms of calender dates, its also likely to be less than one twentieth of the work that needs to be done: since there are fours quarters each in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, plus (almost) one in 2007. If such a trial is not "do-able" then its clearly not worthwhile running a full sweep for five and a quarter years. Pyrotec (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I would support the idea of a sweep, but I have no idea where the labor would come from. --Rschen7754 02:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• YES!!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Just popping in briefly to say that Pyrotec is offering some very good advice. I doubt you'll find the labour even to complete the limited task he suggests in any kind of reasonable timescale. Words are fine, but it's actions that count, and I'm certain you'll find that there are more supporters of this idea than there are of those willing to do the work, which is considerable if done properly. IIRC the last sweeps project was at least in part the brainchild of Jennavecia, who if memory serves did about two reviews herself over the course of getting on for three years. Malleus Fatuorum 11:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is as great a gap between now and the last sweep, as between the previous sweep and pre-sweep. I also agree that it is a massive workload to the point where it is almost beyond feasibility. Much better it is to review the work of a person who has been found to have edited problematically (e.g. copyvios etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

There should be no problem completing the sweep. There is available a well known group of admins, arbs and former arbs, admin wannabees and others on Wikipedia who showed great diligence driving Malleus away, basically on the grounds that Malleus has no net value. The above situation is of their making. The time has now arrived for this group to demonstrate their correctness and their own usefulness, and show that they can, at least if they all work hard together, equal one Malleus and rectify some of the damage they have done to the project. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the type of attitude the Sweep needs to have. With it happening it can show that the members of this site can get along and work on a project that would show how professional this site is. While it may seem like a problem with acquiring helping hands for the project, there will always be a person who will stumble across the Sweeps and join it out of interest. That's how I got involved with it. GamerPro64 04:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sports and recreation split

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to split the Sports and recreation nominations? There are currently 71 in that section, way more than any other. I don't know if this has been suggested before but I think it could get articles reviewed faster because I think they are easily overlooked with the long list.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 18#Proposal to split Sports and recreation. I would just make a proposal and see if anyone objects. If no one does let Chris G (talk · contribs) know as he is the only one who can make the change (he owns the bot that does the updating). AIRcorn (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How do I make a proposal? It looks like a lot of people agree this should be done too.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 04:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not against a split since that's always been the largest section, I'm just unsure of how to do it only because the articles that load up the page change a lot. In 2008 Association football was 1/3 of it, in 2009 pro wrestling was half, and in 2010 it seemed tp be a good deal of college sports stuff (might be wrong on that one). Now is the first time that a S and R split in and f itself actually helps quite a bit. Wizardman 04:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the best we can do is go off the Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation in terms of numbers. These do seem to come in batches, but at least it should even out over time. AIRcorn (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We still need to decide how the split should work. For example I would support either splitting by:

• team sports and individual sports and recreation or
• football sports and bat, racquet, club and stick sports and other sports and recreational activities.

Would probably oppose a simple sport and recreation split though. AIRcorn (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Where would stadiums and arenas go? Also, I see what you mean by how it can change a lot. Before 2012, I believe there was only one Amusement Park GA, but now they're are over 20 with another 20 waiting to be reviewed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't most stadiums be associated with a certain sport. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What about biographies and non-biographies?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Recreation can easily split out - the amusement parks and rides and the like. For sports, the bio/non-bio is a logical place to start. Resolute 20:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I would think one of the main objectives would be to divide them into topics that most of the potential reviewers would be interested in reviewing. The whole objective here is to make it easier for a reviewer to find a review they wish to do. Although there may be editors specifically interested in all sports biographies, I would say that most interests would be divided down the line of specific sports. For example, it would make more sense to have a football player in the same category as a football team, not lumped in with tennis players. AIRcorn (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

GAN error?

Does anyone know why Talk:So God Made a Farmer is in the nonexistent category Category:GAN error? Ryan Vesey 19:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why it did that. I picked a subcat and it seemed to fix the problem. Wizardman 19:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Ryan Vesey 23:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Statistics on wait times

Currently, the WP:GAN page implies that we measure the size of the backlog based on the number of articles that are waiting to be reviewed. However, I think we should not be concerned by the number of nominations to be reviewed. Having a lot of nominations isn't necessarily a bad thing if there are enough available Wikipedians to review them. Instead, we should track the average amount of time it takes for a nominator to wait for a review. Would it be a good idea to get a bot that could calculate the average waiting time for a GA review, so that we can better assess the nature of the backlog? Edge3 (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to do, I might even suggest looking at a few statistics (median, 75%ile, 90%ile, worst-case) waits to get a sense of whether the articles are mostly processed "first-in, first-out", or whether a lot of articles get processed quickly, but a subset end up waiting much longer. Which, again, I would guess wouldn't be that hard to do. You could parse the WP:GAN pretty automatically, I assume there'd be a little magic to processing the date/time text but not too much, and then it's just some arrays, some counting, some math, some output. Depending on my time constraints, if this is seen as desirable I might be willing to take a shot at doing the BRFA, or WP:Bot requests could probably be used to find a willing victim. The latter might be a better choice, I don't have a Toolserver or labs account so what little automation I run runs mostly based on the timing of my whims and availability. --j⚛e decker^talk 03:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Adam Smith review

Just FYI, the GAN review for Adam Smith was started by the nominator. It's probably a mistake on the nominator's part. (Talk:Adam Smith/GA2) I'm not sure how this should be addressed. Edge3 (talk) 18:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Alas, someone seems to have fixed the issue by deleting the review. Edge3 (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearing out the VG backlog

I think it is really time to clear the backlog of Video game nominations. One particular user, Niemti, does not interact well, especially with reviewers at GANs and this issue was brought up at his RfC. He was asked to slow down by multiple editors, but it appears that he has no intention to slow down. The relevant discussions can be found at WT:VG#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Is_it_time_to_clear_the_GAN_backlog.3F and at WT:WPGA#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#Clear_video_game_backlog.3F. If anyone is willing to help clear out the backlog, please do so. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone knows I'm all for backlog clearing, but as a reviewer I'm reluctant to touch his noms based on his conduct in other reviews. On surface reads I'm finding clear problems on some but don't want to have to deal with the responses. I imagine others are the same way hence why his are languishing. Wizardman 17:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I have to echo Wizardman's claims. The VG queue doesn't actually has a backlog. It has all the nominations that come and go, and then there are Niemti's nominations, which nobody is willing to touch. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the fact that nobody is willing to touch Niemti's VG nominations due to his conduct in other reviews (that includes me, even though I never have touched his GANs), what should be the best possible solution? We can't sit there, twiddle our thumbs and let the nominations linger for another few months. I feel that something needs to be done now. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We have tried many solutions in the past. Failing his nominations doesn't work. He re-nominates them again. Telling him to stop nominating doesn't work. Telling him that he should work a lot more on those articles before nominating doesn't work either. The only possible option we have is to restrict Niemti to:

1. Have no more than 5 active nominations in the queue;
2. Not renominate an article that has been failed if no less than a month have passed; and maybe
3. Do a mandatory peer review of all articles that have been failed, and that he has nominated, before resubmitting.

I think this may be a solution, but I also think that it may end up being a bit punitive (imo). I'll let other regulars to voice their opinions. Maybe the current action (to ignore him) is the best we can do. We may not try to find a solution in search of a problem ;) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Niemti's RfC/U is likely to close to soon; my suggestion would be that we wait for that resolution and take our cue from it. The backlog of an extra dozen in the queue doesn't seem like that big a deal--it doesn't seem like they're delaying other VG articles from getting reviewed, which would be my main concern--but limiting Niemti to five active nominations could be reasonable given the long-term interaction issues. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Imposing these restrictions might discourage him from contributing. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

...and that was why I said it might be punitive. We have to find a way lo make him learn that it is not good, not even healthy for him, to nominate a big bunch of articles. He won't be able to take care of all of them if a WP:VG GA drive is being held, or if a general GAN drive is being held. Also, if we start making recruitment drives, he won't be able to speed up either. It would be good to explore solutions about this with him. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I've stated before that I'm also hesitant to take on any more of his GANs due to the inevitable fight that will ensue. The two options I see are:

1. Ignore them, not really the greatest option but at least he can't renominate something that's already nominated I guess.
2. Organise a drive to clear the review backlog. Coordinate it so all start at once. It may be harsh but it could hopefully be the bucket of water that shows him he can't spin that many plates simultaneously and not expect to drop them. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 20:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I would choose option number two. I don't think we can just sit here and wait another two months until an uninvolved user comes along. Something must be done and we don't want to push ourselves too much here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Studying this further, I see two problems. First, Niemti is preventing other users from nominating those articles, and as we all know, if somebody nominates an article, no other users will touch it without talking first to the nominator. Second, Niemti is backlogging the queue all by himself with his nominations (he currently has 19 nominations), preventing reviewers from finding nominations form other users, who fall lost between Niemti's name all over the place. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

UNSPEAKABLE HORROR. But speaking of which, Ada's apparently now free to be taken.[27] --Niemti (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Niemti. I understand that you want to take those articles to good articles status, and I applaud your efforts toward these goals. However, I would strongly recommend that you take only a fixed low number of nominations at a time. Let's say, 5 nominations as I said above. I do restrict myself to no more than five or six nominations, mostly because I know I can't handle much GANs, given that my time is reduced. I may assume that you have more time and it is reasonable. Also, if you reconsider the way you approach other users when they volunteer to review your nominations, you may get GAs more faster . I wouldn't like to see you restricted from nominating articles or something, but you have to agree that there is a problem here, and we won't be able to solve it without your help. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, we can remove 7 (2+5) even today, 2 more are in progress (on hold but fixed already), makes -9 in foreseeable future, leaves a total 10. Better now? --Niemti (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That is an incredible start. I am willing to take some of your nominations myself to help you get your GAs and reduce the VG backlog, so that will soon put the number below 10 I really appreciate your collaboration Niemti, and remember to always treat well the reviewers of your nominations (as long as they do the same) :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The 5 that I chose to go are: Shank, Liu Kang, Elexis Sinclaire, KOF '94, Street Fighter X Tekken, so none of these. One article that is waiting REALLY long is Darkwatch. And if you want something quick, I think Sniper Wolf would be. --Niemti (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I might take Sniper Wolf for review this weekend. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I notified Niemti of these discussions as it is only fair that he can defend himself. I personally think the best solution is to enforce a limit where he can only have a certain number of unreviewed articles nominated at a time. That way he can still participate and improve video game articles, but he is not dominating the queue. As soon as someone picks up a review another one can be nominated. 21:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

@Niemti, would you consider voluntarily withdrawing some of the GAN nominations (perhaps the newest ones until the older ones have been reviewed) and/or slowing down your rate of GA noms? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 21:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you help finish Ada Wong and Lemmings (video game) I'll remove 5. A good deal? :) --Niemti (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a great start and I thank you for co-operating. I will not be able to assist with the reviews for the reasons I have previously stated and also that, considering my involvement with the RfC and the previous ANI cases I think it would be a COI for me. Lemmings is waiting for a 2nd opinion so it shouldn't really be be to finish it. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

New Proposals for GAN, Part I

Main page: Wikipedia:Good article nominations/New Proposals for GAN, Part I

Okay. I have started this RFC to propose and evaluate all the new proposals to replace the backlog elimination drives, as well as new proposals to encourage users to become reviewers, or to increase the level of active reviewers, etc. Note: This RFC is not to choose which proposals will be implemented, but to work on the proposals brought up, evaluate them, tweak them and get them ready before we vote for the ones that will be implemented (which will be handled on the Part II of the RFC). Therefore, I invite all users to go ahead and write the proposals they might have in mind to solve any of all the issues that the GAN process is dealing with. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this still a priority? It seems that the increased points implemented for GA reviews in the WikiCup this year is diminishing the backlog. This page shows that participants have performed 158 reviews, compared to 57 GA submissions. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

We still need a way to get new reviewers. The WikiCup flow won't last forever, and we can't rely on external factors to control the backlog. Right now the backlog is pretty low (Under 300), but we still have the problem of reviewers. Also, this can lead to new ideas. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to just be a brainstorming session at the moment, which is not a bad idea. AIRcorn (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The wikicup does run most of the year, so it will be interesting to see how it progresses. New Year (summer for me) is mixed WRT free time...so it might be worth seeing how the next few months progress. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I am actually quite impressed with how the point change has impacted WikiCup originated reviews. Last year we ran roughtly one review to one nomination via the contest. So far we're at 3:1, though the ratio will change as participants get eliminated. Resolute 23:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Barnstars seem like a de-facto way to encourage... just about anything. Since the Wikicup is a success, maybe we could have ongoing scores and a leaderboard. Copying Peer Review by encouraging GA submitters to do reviews is another one. I am not experienced enough to do reviews, so call me a drag on the system, but someone who has done a lot of GAs or FAs... CorporateM (Talk) 16:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Bringing this back. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I strong believe that we should not post messages of the type, "you've got a GA now so its your job to review another nomination". Like its close associate "you pass my article and I'll pass yours", it leads to potential conflicts of interest. Previous backlog drives with incentives (stars) for the highest number of reviews was, in the case of some reviewers, leading to some superficial reviews but there were notable exceptions and this may well have the same result. For example someone nominating an article and getting a review of the type "I can't see anything wrong, so I'm awarding GA" may well regard that as an expectable way of reviewing articles and then review in a similar manner. Reviews of that type can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012, just in case any thinks that is an unrealistic example. Pyrotec (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

An alternative take on GA

This discussion has gone well off-track. Resolute 04:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In a sense, I think of GA as a front-line defence for FAC; an article that can't get by GA shouldn't be wasting the time of FA reviewers. But I also think of it as a minimum standard to which in ideal world all articles ought to conform, not some kind of prize. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC) That is exactly the kind of attitude that makes FAC a hell for content writers. Reviewers think they have to defend some kind of weird territory by excluding unworthy articles. What they should be thinking is that the review process is the place where articles can be improved in collaboration between reviewers and nominators. Instead you see nominators as enemies trying to sneak substandadr articles into the holiest of holies. That is a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that destroys the entire review process. Yes it gives satisfaction for the writer to have an article promoted because that means that you did a good job. In a reasonable world it should give the same kind of pleasure to the reviewer that wikipedia is now a good article richer, but apparently you see it as a defeat if you didn't manage to shoot it down.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) If it wasn't a kind of "prize", there would be no good article writers in the first place. That should be pretty obvious. As for your first sentence, I don't see what it has to do with anything. No one is talking about articles that do not even meet GA requirements; those are failed either way. A GA review is inherent in an FA review, because all GA criteria are inherent in the FA criteria. This means that the FAR reviewer wouldn't have to do an "extra" review, if that is your concern. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC) No, they're not. Have you ever been involved in an FAC? It's very, very different from the comparatively relaxed atmosphere of a GA review. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I'd have to say that FAC seems pretty easy for me. Maybe is beacause after a pair of successful FACs, you get the knowledge of how to write them, and the process becomes pretty easy from there. — ΛΧΣ21 23:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I've written four FAs, have one under review, and I've written several GAs (all within the past six months), so yes, I know the difference. And whether you like it or not, most people here use them as "prizes". But this is besides the point; if you've FA reviewed an article, you've already GA reviewed it. This means that you do have the judgement to promote it to GA, without further work. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC) .. and whether you like it or not most readers couldn't care less. Which is your current FAC nomination? I'll assess it for GA if you like. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC) It currently has three supports and no opposes, so I doubt it is necessary. And yes, the readers don't care. But most readers don't write the articles either. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC) There are rather few competent reviewers around. Which is your nomination? George Ponderevo (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC) See below. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) George: I'm afraid I can't agree with the second of your initial claims. There are some topics which are notable enough for articles, but for which enough information does not exist for articles of GA quality. An obscure Olympian from decades ago, a song that just scraped the charts from not-so-famous artist and a species of nematode described in a half-paragraph in a highly-technical article are all topics worthy of articles, but which could never be more than a few lines without going off-topic. I also agree with FunkMonk that, not only do editors view GA status as a prize, but that there's not all that much wrong with that. (As an aside, you don't need to waste your time reviewing FunkMonk's Réunion Ibis for GA status; I already have done, and it was certainly worthy.) J Milburn (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I've been thinking for some time now that I've been wasting my time here, and this discussion rather reinforces my view that I really have been wasting my time. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Why exactly? I'm a very recent, yet frequent, contributor to the GA and FA processes, which means that I can look at it objectively, and not be as entrenched and subjective as you and others. I don't see why you should feel so threatened. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) What makes you think I feel threatened? I simply feel ennui. George Ponderevo (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Comments like "If you and your supporters are so set on undermining the GA process there's obviously nothing I can do to stop you" make it seem like you have high stakes in this. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you might care to elaborate, for the benefit of your audience. What "high stakes" you are alleging I might have in this? Financial? George Ponderevo (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Emotional, judging by your loaded rhetoric. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Then you are no judge at all. What exactly is your stake in this, except for a sneaky GA? George Ponderevo (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Unlike you, I am both a writer and reviewer of FAs and GAs, so my stake is simply to make it easier to manoeuvre for the actual content writers who are keeping this project afloat. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC) You assume too much Grasshopper. You have no idea of what I have done or can do. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC) You have just admitted you've never done a GA review, only nominated (selfish, bad etiquette). So unless you're lying, that is a fact, not an assumption. FunkMonk (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I'm disappointed with myself for having been drawn into this discussion. I've been here long enough to know that nothing will ever change, no matter what I think. George Ponderevo (talk) But apparently not long enough to realise that whining doesn't change a thing, good arguments do. You should rather be "disappointed in yourself" for not reviewing other peoples GANs. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC) But you are yet to make a good argument. I've never nominated an article at GAN, so why should I feel obligated to review someone else's nomination? As for your own FA nomination I think it's rather poorly written but I won't oppose its promotion, for all the obvious reasons. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Lol at the desperate cheap shots. Seriously, who do you think gives a damn? You've demonstrated you are unable to be part of a civil, rational discussion, or to bring forth valid arguments, so what do we do from here? And if you have never been involved in a GAN in any way, why the heck are you so passionate about this discussion? How does it even affect your conduct here? What experience do you have with the process that makes you entitled to judge the merits of the proposal? FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Push me just a little bit more and I guarantee you'll regret it. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Push Are you fecking kidding me? FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC) OK, let's be clear. The article you're talking about is Réunion Ibis, right? George Ponderevo (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Yes. Go ahead and oppose. I know exactly how to get a fourth support (by complying to Snowman's demands), so unless you can mobilise some sock puppets, your vote will be in vain, and do nothing but expose your lack of judgement and civility. Seems you've completely lost your senses, lol. FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Do you really believe that your belligerent attitude is doing you any favours? I haven't even read your article yet, but I look forward to having a look at it tomorrow. Should I decide that the article does not meet the FA criteria, and therefore oppose its promotion, I doubt that the support of whatever friends you can subsequently muster will sway the FA delegates. But the fact that you think it might speaks volumes. George Ponderevo (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Lol. Snowman's review is relatively hostile (As in not friendly) but not entirely based on FA criteria, that's why I'm hesitant to comply with all of his demands as for now. But he hasn't opposed, so I will gladly implement every one of his suggestions just to make your oppose worthless. But please, be my guest and waste your time, it will only expose yourself. I'm pretty sure revenge edits are not allowed on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I think this might be a good time for both of you to stop interacting and go have a cup of tea. We have heard the pros and cons now, and I think there is little more to add.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC) You may think whatever you like, as may I. George Ponderevo (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I agree. This is way off tangent. See ya tomorrow, folks, I have to get up in five hours! FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you might explain why you believe that after having read your article I will oppose its promotion to FA? And you really ought to explain what you mean by "revenge edits". George Ponderevo (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Please take unrelated issues to my talk page. I'm done here for tonight. FunkMonk (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC) What about the related issues, such as your personal attacks and dishonesty? George Ponderevo (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC) After a quick read through here, the only personal attacks and dishonesty I see here are yours. You immediately follow "Push me just a little bit more and I guarantee you'll regret it." with a question on what article of his is up for review. That says to anyone with a brain that you have dishonest intentions, and I would be a moron to think otherwise. Wizardman 03:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Then you need to take the time to read a little more carefully, and search on "narrow minded". George Ponderevo (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I able to review?

Hey guys, I was wondering if I would be allowed to help review any "Good article" nominations? I don't have the best reputation on Wikipedia, but it's definitely improving. If anyone needs help reviewing or improving an article for the nomations, please feel free to leave me a message! Kind regards, Rhain1999 (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Indeed, you are allowed to review good article nominations. Also, going a bit further, I encourage you to take one article of the list and start reviewing it :) If you need help understanding the criteria, or find youself unsure about some specific things in the article, or would like to have your review checked before passing/failing the article, you can ping me at my talk, or post here again. We will be more than willing to help. Cheers! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

A good thing is also to read some articles that have already been promoted, it gives a good idea of what is required. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Demoted FAs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See also: Wikipedia talk:Featured articles § Integrated GA reviews

I'm not sure if this s explained elsewhere, but if an FA that was formerly a GA gets demoted, does it then revert to being a GA, or are both "ranks" removed? FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

GA status is removed as soon as an article becomes an FA, so there's nothing to restore. Every demoted FA (that was once a GA) needs to be reassessed to see if it still meets the GA criteria. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a policy that says that? It seems backwards. It certainly makes sense to review demoted FA's, but they should go to GAR. Ryan Vesey 18:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

But once promoted to FA they are no longer GAs, so GAR is irrelevant and GAN is the appropriate venue. How far down the food chain would you go? What about an article that was listed as A class before it became an FA? Articles can have only a single class, and they can't by default fall back to a previous assessment that is by definition out of date. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Usually, articles that are demoted at FA have issues that would keep it from keeping even its GA status (lack of references, poor prose, massive pov). Certainly if a demoted article isn't that bad then it can always be nominated at GA. Wizardman 18:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the referencing and prose requirements for GA are much laxer than for FA and an article that is dmeoted because of reference or prose decay (or simply because they were promoted at a time when the FA criteria were laxer) may very well meet the GA criteria.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That just makes no sense to me. When an article is promoted to FA, it would presumably still meet the GA criteria. While we don't include both icons, I see no reason to assume the GA status is removed. FAR doesn't assess articles against the GA criteria so we can't assume that the article has reverted to a point that is unacceptable for a GA until it has been assessed against the criteria through a GAR. The GA and FA process are also separate from the A, B, C, Start, Stub class projects. Those classes are set by WikiProjects and don't necessarily need to be the same (a conclusion I personally disagree with). An article can be both A class and a GA as seen in Fort Jackson (Virginia). Ryan Vesey 19:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. A-class is a project-specific assessment, unlike FA/GA. It would be quite possible for an article to be assessed by one project as A-class but by another as C-class for instance. Let's remind ourselves of the purpose of GAR: "Good article reassessment (or GAR) is a process primarily used to determine whether articles that are listed as good articles still merit their good article (GA) status." A demoted FA does not have a good article status, therefore the appropriate venue for those who believe that the article still meets the GA criteria is GAN. "George Ponderevo (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• It would make a lot of sense if FAR was conducted with the GA criteria in mind so that the review could simultaneously give GA status to those demoted FAs that meet the criteria.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think that would make any sense at all, as the two process have different criteria and largely different reviewers. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It would make sense to not bump articles further down than necessary. It should be a simple matter for a reviewer who can find out that the article doesn't meet the FA criteria to dtermine if they do meet the GA criteria. That the reviewers are different seems utterly irrelevant, there is no reason they should be or that FA reviewers would be unable to understand the GA criteria. Demoting FAs that meet the GA criteria to B level just because the FAR reviewer is too lazy to see if it meets the GA criteria is both insulting to those who have written the article and detrimental to wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus, and it is also why I made this thread, as it puzzled me that there should apparently be a gap between the two. All the FAs I've nominated were former GAs. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say it's the simplest and least controversial method to not automatically assign demoted FAs GA status without another GA review. If the article is good enough to meet the GA criteria then a GA review should be painless, if it's not then it shouldn't be rubber stamped by a technicality. GRAPPLE X 20:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Not automatically, but those who demote it should have the option to convert the article straight to GA (if they feel it meets the criteria) instead of a new separate review, I think. Then we swap two flies in one bash, instead of endless bureaucracy. It isn't exactly a bad thing to get more GAs easily, whatever the means. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Have to say I wouldn't be comfortable seeing an article put through by a separate means; it also stands to reason that if an article has dropped sufficiently below FA standards as to be promoted, any editor who wants to work on it to GA status is likely going to prefer to work to save the FA status instead. Muddying that process seems needlessly complex—"fix it to remain an FA but we'll also review it against separate criteria too so it might just end up a GA" versus "restore it to FA standards or don't". FAR should really be as streamlined as possible, in my opinion. GRAPPLE X 20:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I came here is because of the Emu article. It was demoted from FA, but could easily be a GA, but perhaps not an FA yet. No one has worked on it to get it to FA since it was demoted, so if the demoters had had the option, it could perhaps had been a GA then (with fewer tweaks), instead of what it is now, and in the foreseeable future. So what I'm thinking is that there could be two options when demoting; simply demoting, and demoting to GA. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the best option is just for reviewers to bear in mind that they can recommend taking the article to a GA review; if you feel emu could make GA easily then by all means that's perfectly open to it. I just don't like the idea of devolving the powers of the GA process to anything else. GRAPPLE X 20:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be MUCH better to suggest to FAR reviewers to also conduct a simultaneous GA review unless the article quality is an obvious GA quickfail. It is already exceedingly frustrating for an article writer who has been through one FA nomination, then dragged to an FAR and demoted for them to be interested in going through yet another review process with new demands from a new reviewer. I think it is very much worth it to make this process less painful and humiliating for the content writers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen how few FAR reviewers there actually are? And as Grapple says, it's not for the FA process to determine whether or not an article meets the GA criteria in any case. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That is just based on the notion that the FA processes and GA processes are necessarily separate and unrelated - when in fact it makes more sense to see them as simply two different stages of a single process of quality review. There is no good reason I can see that they should be sepate, they are not essentially different but just a simple evaluation of an article in relation to a set of criteria. The fact that there are few reviewers is exactly a reason that it makes sense to have one review instead of two separate ones.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

But they are separate and unrelated processes, with different aims. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No they are not, that is just a narrow minded view from one particular side of an imaginary fence. For article writers the process and the objective is exactly the same. The aim is to asses the quality of wikipedias articles so that the quality of any given article can be identified by the reader and the path for improvement can be identified by the writer.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that you fundamentally misunderstand ... well, pretty much everything I've said, so I don't feel that I have anything further to add. Have you floated this idea on the FAC talk page? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. And no I haven't because I didn't start this thread but just happened to agree with its initial premise. And given my experience I am sure that the good people at FAC are every bit as narrow minded when it comes to imagining the work they do as part of a larger process of wikipedia quality control. They seem to mostly think of it as a way to exercise power over nominators.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Every bit as narrow-minded as who? Is it really necessary to remind you of WP:NPA? George Ponderevo (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Come on. This weird bipolar thing is baffling. It weakens Wikipedia rather than strengthening it. GA and FA are just stages. Everyone here whines about few reviewers; this could be a help. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

"Stages" do not have points of view, so you are yet to explain your use of the term "narrow minded" in any way that does not make it a personal attack. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confusing my comments with those of Maunus now. We are separate people. As for "points of view", you're talking as if there was a Wikipedia civil war going on. Perhaps there is, but there shouldn't be. I find the mere notion downright retarded. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I was, apologies for that. To your more general point, there is much about Wikipedia that is "retarded". George Ponderevo (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, one less retardation is hardly a bad thing, no? FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but this is a step backwards, not forwards. "Let's all assume good faith that the most absurd claims backed up by long dead urls are actually true, and that the cited web page hasn't just been copied and pasted.". Does that really seem like a step forwards to you? A step forwards to what? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Um... What? I think you're responding to something in another thread... This discussion is not about dead URLs. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you have a too compartmentalised view of the discussion, but whatever. If you and your supporters are so set on undermining the GA process there's obviously nothing I can do to stop you. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If you could please explain how the process is "undermined" I might be able to comment. All this proposal will do is give the GA reviewers less articles to think about, because they won't have to friggin' re-review a delisted FA which was formerly a GA. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Maunus again. As a writer of both GAs and FAs, I'm positive most others would feel this way, and it would create a steadier stream of GAs. And besides, people are always complaining about lack of GA reviewers, so this proposal could ease that pressure. I can't see any negative aspects of it. It's not that the standards would be lowered or anything, the process would just be sped up. Can anyone point out a downside? FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  Let's see if I've got this right. Your proposal is basically to devolve GA reviews to a small group of FAR reviewers most of whom have no idea what the GA crireria are or how to apply them? And given the historical acrimony between the two processes probably don't care? Do you really think that makes any sense? George Ponderevo (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you came to that interpretation of what we have been arguing. We have argued that FA reviews should be encouraged to take into account whether the articles they demote meet the GA criteria and if they do they should give the demoted article GA status. So what about the historical acrimony? Thats not a good reason for anything. If FA reviewers can understand the Fa criteria than they can sure as hell also learn to understand the GA criteria. What doesn't make sense is to make a review process that is more designed to humiliate and exasperate content writers than to make sure wikipedias articles high quality articles are recognizeable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not at all what I propose. I'm not talking about replacing the GA process itself, only about giving FA reviewers an extra option. And I personally don't care about this "historical acrimony" (which I've never heard of, and find utterly ridiculous), I work freely in both fields, and making this easier is only a good thing. Bureaucracy for the sake of it is strangling Wikipedia. The readers don't really give a damn who wrote an article, or whether it went through the FA or GA process to get where it is. If this "historical acrimony" is so serious, you really need some fresh blood to sort it out for you. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And neither do readers care whether an article is an FA or a GA. It might be informative for you to review the history of the relationship between FA and GA, and the reason that GA Sweeps was felt to be so important. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that because "different people" usually contribute to either process means that the boundaries should be kept so clear cut? What about all the people who contribute to both, and find the FA as a mere extension of GAs? Those are the people who do most of the improvements of articles,as far as I can tell. Not the entrenched conservatives, or whoever. Integration is hardly a bad thing. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And you are repeating the past by considering its arbitrary boundaries between two processes with the same goal to be sacrosanct and unchangeable. Thinking like that we'd still have a wall between East and West Germany.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• My understanding is that if a good article is promoted to featured article status, and then demoted, it has to go again through GAN to regain its GA status. A good article that is promoted to featured article loses its GA ribbon and its removed from WP:GA, which means that, at the time of its promotion, it no longer is a good article. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And that's the problem, there is not even an option to revert it back to its GA status (if it still meets those criteria), instead of demoting it to nothing. And that' what this proposal is about. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe a featured article promoted in 2008 would not pass GA at this time. I am not comfortable having a former FA to retain GA status without a review or a proof that it actually meets the GA criteria. Otherwise, we'd have a rise in our level of GA reassessments due to poor articles being given back the GA ribbon without a check. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

And that's why the FAR reviewers would be given the option to promote it to GA instead. Again, no one has proposed a former GA should automatically become so again after delisting. We're talking about giving the option to integrate GA reviews/promotion into the FAR reviews, thereby saving reviewer energy. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Demote to GA if the article was GA previously, and if the FAR discussion determines that GA status should be retained. Standard FAR procedures should include a discussion of whether the article meets GA criteria. Following this procedure will save editor energy and time. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Demote to GA There is absolutely no reason to squander reviewer energy on separate GARs when an FA that was formerly a GA is failed and still meets those criteria. This proposal will take the pressure off. Taking this further, even regular FA reviewers could even have the option to say "promote to GA" instead of simply "oppose" (this would create more GAs, and make nominators less humiliated, and less likely to leave the project for good). But that is a separate issue. I don't think we should care about the egos of individuals who feel the need to entrench themselves as writers of either FAs or GAs, the project itself is more important than that. Seriously, no one cares about your little pseudo-civl war. See also my formal proposal here:[28] FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone give me an example of an article that was demoted from FA status but would have instantly passed a GA assessment if one was held during the FAR? Emu is not such an example, incidentally. It was given FA status in 2006, it was brought to FAR in 2011 (by which time the nominator had effectively been absent from WP for some years, with just seven edits between May 2008 and the FAR - so there is no question of this FAR driving the FAC nominator away), and the article was demoted for (inter alia) having significant unsourced material, which would be a bar to a GA pass anyway. Bencherlite^Talk 22:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I can give you a possible future example. The Rodrigues Solitaire article (which I wrote) is an FA which was formerly a GA. But a user has stated he wants to start a FAR, because he feels there should be more specific page ranges.[29][30] That, however, is not a GA criterion, so it would still meet GA criteria if it was delisted from FA. But as things are now, it would have to go through the GAR process again to reach GA status (though it already passes the requirements), which is a waste of time and energy. Other examples could be articles that are delisted due to prose issues, comprehensiveness issues, cite style/template issues, or any other issue unrelated to verification itself. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

So all this is just about a possible future issue if an FAR is started on one of your articles and the page ranges requested are not (or cannot be) provided, just to save you a possible wait between FA demotion and a renewed GA review? It seems to me that this is a solution in search of a problem. Plus, as FAR is a multiple reviewer venue, you'd end up asking more than one person to carry out a GA review when a nomination at GA only requires one person. And what happens if people disagree whether the GA criteria are met in a former FA? Who gets the casting vote? Bencherlite^Talk 22:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, because it was the Emu article that gave me the idea long ago (see the talk page, I didn't know delisted FAs were also stripped of their GA status by default), but the issue about the other article (which only arose today) just made me even more puzzled about the process. But that's besides the point, and I don't care what you think my motives are; the proposal is a viable solution to some of Wikipedias problems. The Rodrigues Solitaire could be reverted straight to GA, and the Emu article could be promoted to GA during the FAR, if the GA (but not the FA) requirements were met during review. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think when Madonna (entertainer) was delisted from FA-status, it did not necessarily satisfy the GA criteria. There were several sourcing issues that had to be taken care of during the GA review. But I guess through consensus at FAR, an article can regain GA-status. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, her article would not revert to GA. And no one has proposed it should. Only if it still passed the GA requirements. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thus I agree with above comments that GA promotion should be decided through consensus at FAR. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Another possible future example could be Turkish language currently at FAR, I think it probably does meet the GA criteria, even if its current degree of sourcing is not adequate for FA anymore (although it was when the article was promoted).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• This conversation is all over the place, so god knows how someone is supposed to assess consensus. Anyway since Good articles are a one reviewer deal and FAC reviewers should theoretically know the criteria then as someone primarily involved in the GA process I don't have a problem if they decide an article is not worthy of being featured, but meets the Good criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I will propose this formally at village pump policy. These discussions have shown that there is some support for the FAR issue, but not the FAC issue, and I've messed up by blending them into the same discussions. Also, it seems some people[31] are so emotionally attached to arbitrarily separated processes to be willing to compromise the Wikipedia project itself, and prevent mere discussion of integration, as can be seen in the below thread. Such zealousness and antagonism between mere assessment processes does not belong on Wikipedia, and should be flushed out on sight. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to object in the strongest possible terms about FunkMonk's personalisation of a difference of opinion, particularly after my having been labelled as "narrow minded" just because I don't happen to agree with him. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I thought it needed to be said nevertheless. FunkMonk's was in no sense an effort at seeking a collaborative way forward. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(That posting wasn't from Malleus it was from me, George Ponderevo. I used his computer without noticing that he hadn't logged out. Shame on him.) George Ponderevo (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

+1 --Rschen7754 23:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

May I note that 1. It was me not FunkMonk, who called your approach narrow minded, which yes I admit was not conducive to a good discussion, for which reason I apologized when you brought it to my attention. Let me also remind you that your own verbal behaqvior has been even less conducive to a rational discussion, asking other editors if they understand basic English vocabulary and then calling them clueless when they show they do. You have been assuming bad faith from the outset, and your repeated statement about FunkMonks possible motivation are in extremely bad taste. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What benefit do you see from persisting with these personal attacks? While at the same time not objecting to the personal attacks from FunkMonk? George Ponderevo (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Absent nominators

There was a kind of school project where students nominated articles for GA as part of their classes, but as has been noted before[32], there were many quality problems with these, and many of the nominators simply vanished, not to be seen again. What happened since is that some were quick failed, and others were promoted, because other editors came to the rescue and implemented the suggestions in the reviews.[33] Now we still have two school nominations up, Barbary macaque and Procellariiformes, but it seems no one dares to take up those reviews, because they know there might not be a response from the nominators. What to do? FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Either ask if someone is going to take responsibility, or explain the reviewer will make a few specific comments, & wait to see those dealt with before continuing. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start with your last suggestion, and if no one shows up, I'll ask at the animal project... FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, seems like Sasata just did. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive3#Good articles regarding these noms. The consesnsus there was that students should not be encouraged to nominate articles for Good review. Hopefully this means we will not be flooded again, but if someone does come across student nominated articles they can probably take a minimalist approach to reviewing until they are sure that the student is going to be able to respond. AIRcorn (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Dead Refs OK?

From what it appears, dead refs are not apart of the criteria and this article says it is fine to have them in it. In my opinion, dead refs should be part of the criteria (in terms that if there are dead refs, the article can not pass) because there is no way to verify the statements. Anyone agree?--Dom497 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No. This has come up before and I'll repeat my position from earlier discussions: a dead web address is just as verifiable/reliable as a newspaper or journal cite when you don't have access to those printed media (more so, actually, as it's possible for whoever is trying to verify the ref to use an archiving service like this to try finding it online themselves. Obviously it's preferable for links to all work, but they shouldn't be a prerequisite. If I cite a fact to a book that isn't available online it would go unquestioned, but to a website that subsequently goes down? Alarm bells, apparently. GRAPPLE X 19:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I echo what Grapple X has said above. Dead references are permitted in Good articles as long as they are formatted in a way that you can replace them, or look for a new link. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Please read and get yourself acquainted with WP:LINKROT. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dead web addresses are not just as verifiable. There are a limited number of archiving services out there, so unless the site was privately archived or the owners still have a copy then the information from the site may be lost forever. There is a difference between difficult to verify as with newspapers or journals that you don't have access to and possibly impossible to verify like dead web addresses that aren't publicly archived. Whether the possibility is sufficient to require their removal can be debated, but I don't think the two are comparable as you say. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Related to these dead refs, would it be reasonable to require that online refs be archived using http://www.webcitation.org/ before a GA passes? I've not used it yet, but it appears like a lot of editors do use it and it seems easy. Ryan Vesey 02:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• To clarify, dead refs would still be okay. It would prevent future dead refs by requiring that the online references that still exist are archived. Ryan Vesey 02:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is terribly fair to any editor who wishes to create GA standard work to insist they use a third party service. As stated above, it is perfectly fine to cite a dead link just as it is perfectly fine to cite an out of print book. ★★RetroLord★★ 03:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

In short, this is why we push having references filled out, with dates, titles, etc. despite some hating that. It's precisely so that, should links go dead, everything remains fine article-wise, and worst-case scenario we only have to remove the url. Wizardman 03:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If the url isn't archived somewhere, how can we be sure that it ever really existed? And if it is archived somewhere, why shouldn't the link to the archive be provided? The situation is not at all analogous to out of print books, which are still available in libraries or the secondhand market. George Ponderevo (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

If the URL isn't archived somewhere we assume good faith, it's the same way if the reference is in a foreign language. Ryan Vesey 05:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we? So AGF = "switch your brain off"? It's in no way equivalent to a foreign-language source, as I can translate that. And I could check for the existence of a printed source, even if I couldn't immediately check its contents. But how could I be sure that a url ever existed? George Ponderevo (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think dead refs should not be allowed. If an archive can be found, use it. If not, remove the dead ref. The link could be added to the talk page, so if the site ever came back or if an alternative site can be found the information/link could be added back. The key here is the ability (or possibility) to verify the information. If a book/journal is cited then there is evidence that the information is verifiable by e.g. the book being available at libraries as shown by worldcat. With a dead web address, we have no reason to believe the information will ever be verifiable again. Unless we have reason (i.e. evidence) to believe the information will ever be available in the future, then we shouldn't be basing articles on them. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what Odie says. Context is key - without having the link to hand, or available via the Wayback machine, you cannot verify the information in it, and since it is substantially easier to fake a website entry than to fake a book, the two are not the same. I would not accept "Joe Schmoe was convicted of murdering Sally Simple" and referencing a dead link in findarticles.com. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about people faking urls, more that the information is no longer verifiable and may never be verifiable again. With a book in a library, we have assurances that someone could go and obtain that book. With a dead web ref, the information may well have perished from existence (unless we have evidence to the contrary). Recently an article I worked on developed a dead ref. Googling the url shows that people linked to it on various web forums and through some indexing site. The content from the url is gone though, no waybackmachine, no webcite, no archis.is, no one quoted the source in a web post or anything. As far as I can tell the information is completely gone, but through the secondary sources we have evidence that the url existed. Is this sufficient? I do not believe so, because we have no reason to believe the information can ever be verified again. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that dead refs are not part of the criteria, and it isn't policy to refuse dead refs. This discussion started when one of the articles I passed was immediatly put through reassessment over one or two dead links. I don't think it is fair on a nominator to refuse a GA over a few dead links, especially if they aren't in the criteria. ★★RetroLord★★ 08:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Could they not have avoided drama simply by fixing the two links using Wayback or another source? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but as I said, if it isn't part of the criteria, articles shouldn't be assessed on this. And if this were to be included in the criteria, it is possible thhat significant amounts of current GA's would become instantly disqualified, neccessitating another sweep? Just my thoughts. ★★RetroLord★★ 09:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I take a more pragmatic view of GAs. If I find something that technically isn't part of the GA criteria but would improve the article, I think it is fair game to suggest it be done. There are acceptable counterarguments I'll take, like "I don't have that source", "it would take too long", "I don't believe we've got consensus" but refusing to fix something soley because it doesn't meet the GA criteria but is otherwise a simple task does not wash with me, as IAR states we can bypass them if we've got good reason to. I have a real problem with people using GA as a rubber stamp. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on the IAR front, but I am cautious as I was attacked a while ago regarding my review of their article which apparantly overstepped the criteria. Also I don't think we should be too liberal in interpreting the GA criteria or adding our own, they are there for a reason. '★★RetroLord★★ 13:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Checking links is already part of the GA criteria, and I'm surprised to see anyone claim differently. If you are unable to check that a url ever existed, that it links to a reliable source, and that chunks of the text haven't been copy and pasted from it, then clearly the article fails criteria 2b and potentially 1a. The situation with printed sources is quite different. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that assuming good faith overrules this. In order for wikipedia to function, we have to assume that the url did at some point exist as a reliable source. ★★RetroLord★★ 13:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that that's a charter for cheats and rogues, and if taken to its logical conclusion would mean that we require no citations at all, for anything. The GA criterion is quite clear, and checking that cited sources actually exist is part of checking for reliability. If you can't find a url, or any evidence that it ever existed, how can you conclude that the links are to reliable sources? George Ponderevo (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, I misread the guidelines. Wikipedia:Link rot says that information should not be considered unverifiable because the link doesn't work. That is counteracted by the guideline WP:DEADREF, which says that once a reference is dead for 24 months it should be considered unverifiable. That's an excessively long amount of time, but I'm creating two proposals below to address this. Is this the correct place for such proposals? Ryan Vesey 16:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  As a caveat to everyone above, just yesterday I came across a site that has quite a lot of usage in references that no longer worked. Webcite and Archive both didn't have the source. I tried a different site and saved about 5% of the refs through there. Does that mean all the information is suddenly unsourced in these articles? It's not the writer's fault that they moved and blacked out all the information. I get what others are saying, which is why I always use book or newspaper sources when I can, since if links go dead there they are still verifiable in print. Wizardman 17:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal One

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Per the existing criteria and per WP:AGF, Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url. Dead links in bare URLs will be considered unverifiable for the purposes of GA nominations.

Support

• Support As nom. Ryan Vesey 16:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Good idea. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 17:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with the proposal. If an editor has taken the time to fully cite his/her contributions, holding a dead link against them is not fair. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support As my Nighthawk (roller coaster) nomination is what brought this up, I support that they should only be considered unverifiable if it's a bare URL.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Seems sensible, and seems close to practice in other academic publications. As an aside, I think it'd be best to include a couple of extra words and lose one- "Dead links are usually considered verifiable if the link is not a bare url. Dead links in bare URLs will normally be considered unverifiable for the purposes of GA nominations." J Milburn (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Question. Would this criteria retroactively disqualify current GA's, or only apply to future reviews? ★★RetroLord★★ 20:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Only to future reviews. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree it should be for future GANs/GARs, but I would not disallow this to be used as the basis to initiate the GAR of a previously passed GA. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bare links should never be permitted. If the reference that has gone dead is well formatted, then we should allow it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support I would expand this to a ban on bare URLs in general, since it takes just a few seconds to explain your URL even if you're wikimarkup novice. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I would reasonably oppose a GAN if part of the references were bare links. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to justify their use other than laziness, and GAs are held to a general standard of quality that must include complete references. As for a dead {{cite web}} ref, I consider it exactly the same as any reference to a magazine that I don't own a copy of -- worrying, and would prefer an alternative source be found, but as long as source's existence is credible I would be willing to assume good faith. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per Ryan Vesey, Salvidrim and Hahc21. Bare links should not be permitted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - This proposal sounds great but WP:RGA and WP:GACN (indirectly) approve of dead bare URLs. Quotes:
  • "Perfectly formatted citations are not required. Read the detailed guidance at WP:DEADREF before addressing any non-functional URLs".
  • "...(If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)"

If this proposal goes forward, the relevant pages need to be updated to reflect the new consensus including WP:GACR which Aircorn (talk · contribs) has already mentioned below. //Gbern3 (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • Well, if this proposal goes through, we change those pages to adapt to this consensus. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, though weakly. Archives of sites that have a history of being volatile would certainly be preferred, but certainly I support considering bare URLs unverifiable since they tell us nothing. Wizardman 20:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. Not strong enough. It's far too easy to fake online citations. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• You do realize that opposing this is the same as supporting our current criteria which do not address dead links at all. Ryan Vesey 19:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  That may be your interpretation of the current criteria, but it's certainly not mine, as I've tried to explain above. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Could you please explain which current criteria you are referring to and what your interpretation is? --Odie5533 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  2b and potentially 1a, as I tried to explain above. If you can't validate a url then how can you be sure it's a reliable source? AGF only applies where a GA is taken to GAR, when it might be permissible to assume that the original GA reviewer had indeed checked the source. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• If the site was already pre-determined to be reliable by e.g. a wikiproject with a discussion of the source prior to shutting down, then what? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  We're not discussing the site, we're discussing what it's claimed that a page on the site no longer available actually said. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Question What does this entail at a practical level? In other words how is this going to be added to the WP:GACR and what will the wording be? AIRcorn (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal Two

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• To prevent linkrot, the nominator should archive all online sources using WebCite or another on demand archiving service if one exists or the nominator must seek out someone to do the archiving for them.

Support

• Support As nom. If this passes, I will create Category:Wikipedians willing to archive sources using WebCite and will add myself to the category. I know of a number of Wikipedians who would likely add themselves as well. Ryan Vesey 16:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, WebCite is currently almost heading to death. Unless a miracle happens, no new archiving will be available. Notwithstanding, I support the idea of archiving all the sources, and it is something a constantly practice. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose. What if the backups go dead? Should we backup the backups? If the original is dead, but I link to a backup I created on my blog, would I also have to backup my blog onto webcite? This could get silly, very quickly. Further, this kind of mandatory archiving is not, as far as I am aware, something that is required in any serious academic publication. If it is required elsewhere, I'd be interested to hear about that place. It is also not required anywhere else on Wikipedia, including FAC; if it's going to start anywhere, GAC probably isn't the place. J Milburn (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per J Milburn and because we shouldn't make editing articles harder than it needs to be. The purpose of GA is to encourage the creation of "good" articles, not to scare away editors. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per J Milburn. We should definitely set up more automated archiving, and even create a task force to archive all links in incoming GANs, but I don't think we should require it for GA. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WebCite

I will break my temporary self-retirement to say this: I have done some research and WebCite won't be shut down. They won't accept new archive requests by the end of 2013, but the currently archived URLs will still be available for all to check. So, we won't have a massive quantity of new dead links on our currently assessed good articles. Although, if their $50,000 goal is not reached, we will have to find a new way to store references by the start of 2014. End of break. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Theoretically, I'm wondering if Wikimedia could create a more stable alternative? Perhaps if a webpage is referenced on Wikipedia, in a formatted template, in the mainspace, for at least three months, the Wikimedia servers would create an archive of the page automatically? Or perhaps we could work out a deal with Archive.org to crawl anything that Wikipedia links to? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think something tied to Internet Archive would be the best. WMF doesn't really have any experience in the web archiving realm. I'm sure they could learn it, buy if IA were to run it then WMF wouldn't need to worry about maintaining servers or creating the whole service. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Should we wait until this http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WebCite is over before we do anthing to GA reviews? ★★RetroLord★★ 20:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• That discussion may be open for a long time, and even when it closes it could take even longer until anything is done. It's good to start up something on meta, but we should also archive things using the tools we already have. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I need to hand over a review to another editor

Talk:Same-sex marriage in Maryland/GA1

I apologise but for now it is best if I hand off my current projects to others. I will be going on a Wikibreak.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I can take over this one for you. Just leave any parting comments at the review page. AIRcorn (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Good article reassessment

The reassessment page is building up again. I have either commented on or initiated most of the ones that are currently there, many of which are severely lacking in commentators. If some editors are willng to help close out the older ones or even comment so consensus can be made clearer that would be great. AIRcorn (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I nominated one of the articles their so I guess I should go help out, i'll try and do that one I nominated within the next few days. ★★RetroLord★★ 11:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:GA broken

I went to promote an article and noticed that Template:GA is quite visibly broken; the problem appears to be an extra hard return appearing in the topic section before the words "good article". Unfortunately I can't find the relevant page to fix this, as the template page itself hasn't been touched for a month. I left a note there, but thought I'd mention it here, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems like Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs)'s last edit to {{GA/Topic}} has broken the template. The page is protected, so that I can't rever or modify his edit. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Wizardman fixed it--thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Cosmic ray GA review

I've just started the Cosmic Ray GA review, but the nominator appears to have created the review page first. I'm reporting this here in case the bot goes crazy over this, or in case of any other problems that may arise. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Bot Proposal

After recently looking at the history on the page User:GA Bot/stats , I noticed that the bot seems to make updates multiple times a day, and perhaps even every time a review is started. My proposal is to limit the bot to one update on the page per day, so as not to excessively drain Wikipedia's resources. I'm not proposing to scrap the page altogether, just to limit the bots edits to it. Thoughts? ★★RetroLord★★ 10:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, the GA bot was designed to run every 10 minutes. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 13:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about performance. There are better things we can do with our time. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That page should probably be changed. Fundraising continues to improve and surpluses are common now. Biosthmors (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What other options are there besides pass, hold, and fail?

What if there is an extended review of an article, and there has been great progress (but the review page is messy). People want to continue working on the article, but they'd rather start with a fresh (and second) review page. Is there a way to withdraw or cancel the good article nomination without failing it, before a new review is opened? Biosthmors (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The "proper" words are "listed" or "not listed", but "pass" and "fail" are often used to mean the same thing. To return to the question, there is nothing to stop a review from being closed without a formal statement of "fail" or "pass", but there aught to be an explanation of why it was closed. Say, review /GA1 was closed for this very reason and review /GA2 was then opened, the {{articlehistory}} template would record the results in this case as: GA1 = not listed, GA2 = listed or not listed (whether the result was). "Hold" is just that, its waiting for a decision to be made, its not an end result in its self. Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Further Opinion on GAN Failure

I refer to the recent review of the article Betsy Blackwell. The article was failed by User:HueSatLum with the following rationale:

I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this. It is a short article that is not ready for GA status. This might be one of those topics that just isn't notable enough to have significant information about them to write a GA-worthy article. A two-paragraph, 300-word article isn't long enough to provide comprehensive information about her life. [...]

… however, I maintain that the article size is appropriate to the topic (a point I flagged up with a note to the nomination). It addresses the main aspects of the topic: recognises her professional career, her achievements and contains a succinct biography of her life. There is very limited information about her, and I am concerned by HueSatLum's suggestion that there are topics which can simply be excluded from GA status on the basis of not being notable (despite being notable enough to continue on WP generally). Any further input would be appreciated. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As a useful perspective I refer users to the essay: Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not:

Taken together, these criteria mean that no obviously important information should be entirely absent from the article, and the level of detail should be appropriate to the significance of the information. It is better to have an article that covers the essentials well, based on reliable sources, than a diffuse article relying on trivia or unreliable sources to flesh it out.

These criteria do not impose arbitrary size restrictions (in terms of kilobytes, characters or readable prose). Good articles can be as short or long as is appropriate to the topic: WP:SIZE is not a good article criterion. However, size issues may be indicative of genuine GA problems with coverage (3a), concision and focus (1a and 3b), or the use of summary style.

Mistakes to avoid [...] Imposing arbitrary size restrictions, rather than directly addressing GA issues of coverage, conciseness, focus and the use of summary style.

MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of sources that I would say are fairly key that you have not used, including a profile in Current Biography, an entry in American National Biography, and an article in TIME magazine referenced in the ANB. "There is very limited information about her" is not the same as "There is limited information about her in easily accessible sources available via a simple Google Search". Moswento ^talky 18:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have access to them/any information on what those sources include and which is not already in the article? I ask because even with my access rights to various journals, I still can't seem to view them (ANB and TIME require subscription, Current Biography simply refuses to allow you to input login details...). However, the sources you raise doesn't really detract from the issue. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that coverage was not broad enough for GA. Women's Periodicals in the United States: Consumer Magazines, pages 198–199, discusses Blackwell's succeeding Desmond Hall as editor, and it describes some of Blackwell's innovative ideas. The book is cited in the article but the article does not properly relay the information contained in the book. Bringing Up 'baby': The Birth and Early Development of Seventeen Magazine, page 38,, discusses how Blackwell mentored Helen Valentine who took her lessons to the founding of Seventeen, which makes Mademoiselle something of a forebear to Seventeen. The Berg Companion to Fashion, page 285, says that Blackwell brought the innovation of publishing prices and availability underneath fashion photos. Blackwell was also in the forefront of fashion editors working closely with retail stores to help them get their message out. Sylvia Plath: Method and Madness, page 102, gives more detail about how Blackwell influenced Sylvia Plath. Cipe Pineles worked under Blackwell for a while; within Cipe Pineles: A Life of Design, pages 104–105, there is some discussion of what it was like at Mademoiselle under Blackwell. These references were ones I found in a ten-minute period, indicating to me that the article was not researched deeply enough. There are more references than this, I'm sure. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It also fails 1b. At the very least it should have a lead. AIRcorn (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't claim there aren't more sources, but the article does address the "main aspects" of the topic. But clearly this isn't a view anyone shares—so I'll accept the decision. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I meant by "topics that just [aren't] notable enough to have significant information about them to write a GA-worthy article." I meant that someone who is "notable" has a well-documented life, enough to write an article of sufficient length. Of course Blackwell is "notable enough to continue on WP generally", but that does not mean that she has had enough coverage to describe her life in detail. Also, on another point, I would definitely recommend including a picture of the subject for a future renom. HueSatLum 23:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New Proposals for GAN, Part II

I will try to get part two ready this month. I will pick up the proposals that had the highest level of support/community discussion and I will make them as Part II, where the whole community may discuss which of them are worth a shot. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Reusing old GA1 page for GA2 review: Talk:Cotton-top tamarin/GA1

I was puzzled to see a GA1 review that I remember being failed back in January suddenly being resurrected. As best I can tell, the submitter posted answers to the many original points on the GA1 page on March 4, one day before submitting the new GAN request. Apparently the original reviewer, Zad68, picked up the new GAN (GA2) yesterday and decided to continue comments on the GA1 page, posting a note to that effect on the GA2 page, which has been transcluded on the article's talk page (both GA1 and GA2 are now transcluded).

Is this a problem, combining two reviews on one page, or should it run its course? If it's a problem, I imagine it should be possible to separate them out, duplicating as necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi... I didn't mean to cause trouble if I have by doing it that way. Because it seemed like a continuation of the previous GA effort I didn't see a compelling reason to make a new GA page while we were still working on the old one. But, if it's determined that it's a problem, let me know and I'll move it, although WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:IAR and all that. Zad68 18:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it will make much practical difference, it just looks a little confusing. How will you list them in the article history template? You might find it easier to just delete the second one and continue as if you had never failed the first. Personally I would have just started a new review and mentioned something about the old one. AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with the last comment. There are two separate reviews: the first review resulted in a "fail" or a "not listed" sentence back in January, the second one (I assume is still in progress) will give a result in March. So there aught to be two separate reviews and the work being carried out for the second review aught to appear on the /GA2 review page. Even if the first reviewer was regarded as having "wrongly failed" the nomination, the appropriate step would have been either to renominate the article at WP:GAN, which seems to have happened in this case, or to submit it to WP:GAR: in neither case would the first review /GA1 template be used to carry out the second review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Pyrotec. Also, the two reviews should be separated so that the article history template correctly shows the chronology. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Its the same reviewer. Instead of starting a new review they went back to their old one. The second review currently just says to see the first one and there are already new comments asked and addressed their. Like I said I would not have done it this way, but I don't really see a major problem as long as the article history is clear on what happened. The end goal is to assess if the article meets the criteria, which appears to be being done correctly. AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I checked. It is the same reviewer, but that reviewer was specifically asked by the nominator to look at it some 50 minutes after it was nominated. The second review seems to have started about 24-hours after nomination. I'm not making any suggestion of impropriety here on the part of either the reviewer or the nominator, nor of substandard reviewing (I'm assuming WP:AGF). The nominator choose to use the /GA1 sheet as a work sheet on the 4th March shortly before the second nomination to record corrective actions from the first review and then went back to the original reviewer. The reviewer just carried on using the /GA1 form for the second review. Let's be clear, the integrity of the process depends on the integrity of the reviewer, and as the second review is incomplete there's not much to comment on. If the review is considered inadequate, then the option of WP:GAR is available. The justifications made for this approach were WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:IAR and the ends, i.e. "assess if the article meets the criteria", justify the means. That is certainly one way of looking at, but these actions would not have come to light if the reuse of the /GA1 had not been noticed by another editor. We do seem to agree on I would not have done it this way. Pyrotec (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute, now I'm having a hard time not feeling defensive. Originally it was just a process question, was it OK to "continue" a failed GA1 or was it necessary to move to a GA2? Is the scope of this conversation now expanding to include questioning my integrity, in either my resolution of the first GA review as failed, or in my picking up the GA review again? If there's any question at all I will hand the GA2 review over to someone else.

I failed GA1 with editor consent. I was happy to pick up the GA review again because Jack (the editor) had moved the article forward by addressing all the outstanding items from GA1, and he used the GA1 page to track that work. He then asked me to pick it up again, which made sense to me as I still had knowledge of the article from the GA1, which had concluded just six weeks earlier.

If my integrity is not being questioned, I'd like that to be made clear, because the last thing I'd like is to have my integrity doing GA reviews in question. I think GA is one of the most important goal lines and milestones in an article's development and I do not in any way want my actions to cause disrepute to this process. Thanks. Zad68 18:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Two days, no responses... Is everything cool now? I am planning on passing the GA2 today, once the editor finishes the last few things. Please speak up now if there's anything to be said. Zad68 13:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not been on air since 10 March 2013 so nothing "sinister" about the lack of response, I've not made any responses at all in that time. Perhaps its just a question of words that are written on this page. Just to clarify, the words "integrity" come from Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and they specifically refer to the "integrity of the process", and your words above could be read as dismissing the review process as "BUREAUCRACY" and as "rules to ignore", perhaps that was not the intended message. Furthermore, in this nomination the review process appears to have been driven by the nominator rather the reviewer: if the article was correctly failed at the first review (OK to avoid any doubt, it was), why "re-open" it three-months later when the article was renominated; and please note the reviewer does not need the nominator's agreement to fail a nomination (GA does not work that way). However, the article now looks fine, as does the /GA2. Pyrotec (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

We left the GA1 area as failed, we moved to GA2, the GA2 is complete, the article has been listed as GA, the article milestones on the Talk page correctly reflect the GA review history, and I do not believe anybody is questioning that result here, right? Moving forward, I commit to 1) Not accepting personal requests from GA nominators to pick up an article's GA review that they had previously supported and I failed; 2) Always using a new GA review area to do a GA review. Good? Cheers... Zad68 14:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with you re-reviewing an article you previously failed. In fact I would say it makes you an ideal reviewer as you should already be familiar with the article. Some common sense would apply obviously; if you made significant contributions since the last review or your last review was not well recieved I would avoid doing a second one. AIRcorn (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Aircorn makes some good points which I can agree with. I would also add: ensure that the review considers the nomination as it is now, not how it was last time round; and the GAN review should be "driven" by the reviewer, not the nominator. Pyrotec (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Liu Kang/GA1 & Talk:Resident Evil 5/GA1

Stalled for no apparent reason for over a week now, could someone take over and finish it quickly? Kthx. --Niemti (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Closed Kang. RE5 wasn't a review so it's back in the queue. Wizardman 17:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll take Resident Evil, but what do you mean, did someone start the review, why is the link red then? FunkMonk (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, I can already see now there are several unsourced sentences. This should be fixed before a nomination, or it could be quick-failed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The bot changes the status to on review when the review page is created, so the easiest way to put an article with an abandonned (as long as it has no useful content) or incorrect (a common mistake is when the nominator accidently starts it) review back into the queue is to simply delete it. If you want to review the article you just need to re-create Talk:Resident Evil 5/GA1 and review it as normal. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Several unsourced sentences" has nothing to do with "be quick-failed" whatsoever. (It is for The article [that] completely lacks reliable sources; also Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules.) --Niemti (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Two passages under Gold Edition and downloadable content end without citations. Marketing and PlayStation Home also end without citations. That is a problem for verifiability. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Really need a qualified 2nd Opinion on Talk:Thomas Traherne/GA1

I nominated Thomas Traherne for GA in December, it finally got a reviewer (User:Michael!) but from his comments he seems to not have read large swaths of the article he's reviewing, admitted he's not qualified to finish the review right from the start, and exhibits being rather oblivious to policies/guidelines. His rigor seems to be demanding the scrutiny of a FAC, asking for expansion of content that goes beyond the wise limits of WP:SUMMARY and WP:DETAIL and frankly inappropriate for a simple GA nomination. I'd like a second opinion from a qualified reviewer, because his comments are becoming incredibly frustrating.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem: reviewers often not knowing/understanding policies/guildelines, and/or choosing to "ignore" them

So, this debacle forced me to raise this issue, but it's hardly the first time I've seen things like that.

Common mistakes are of two kinds:

• quickfails outside of quickfail criteria and according to one's own preferences (like above, or with Doom before - in both cases, "The article completely lacks reliable sources" was abused because the reviewers either had problems with some out of many sources, or thought there were 'not enough' sources)
• imposing GA conditions beyond the scope of GA, according to one's own random preferences or even the scope of FA (such as asking for more citations even for things outside the defined only 5 GA criteria for content in need of referencing, or demanding 'perfectly' formatted citations, or more images, etc.)

I'm not quite sure to remedy this, maybe it should be all emphasised somehow somewhere, like on the project page. Or maybe should be the rather enlightening essay Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not turned into a guideline, or re-worked into a section of Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, or something. (After all the essays are just essays, even as this is linked one as "further information" from the guideline.) I myself didn't know about all of this at first, and initially I just believed the reviewers and what they were saying, and only learned it all later, even as I've never reviewed anything myself (I don't think I'm qualified fore reviewing because I can't really even recognise many grammar/tenses problems for example).

An additional thing is that maybe such minor things as grammar problems should be just fixed by the reviewer, instead of being listed in the review, which is more time-consuming (even just for the reviewer) and the results are just the same. It can make the process simply faster for everyone. --Niemti (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not the issue you believe it is. If you are unable or unwilling, for instance, to put the time into formatting your references, I've really got to ask why you think a reviewer should be spending many hours reviewing your work. This is especially true when you do not participate in reviewing yourself, and are frequently aggressive towards reviewers. The mere fact that something is not explicitly covered by the good article criteria does not give you a free license to tell anyone who mentions it that they are not treating your article with the respect it deserves, or they are reviewing wrong, or they are a "problem". When you nominate something at GAC, you are looking for someone to help you improve an article; you are not looking for a machine to judge whether it ticks certain boxes. (As an aside, a lot of reviewers do make smaller fixes, but there are often good reasons for not making even smaller changes; ambiguities may be resolved the wrong way, technical details may be misunderstood and often reviewers are cautious about making the prose too much their own, which would lead to legitimate questions about whether they are able to offer the "second opinion" that reviewing should be.) J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'm "putting the effort" in including: title, outlet, date, author (and lately I'm even putting a comma at the end, and ISBNs to the books), and that's actually more than is neeeded. They're not problem themselves, their approach is a problem (and it's so commonplace something needs to be done with that). Also: to answer this with flately saying that the rules of reviewing are to be "ignored", that's completely unacceptable. Especially since the guidelines say it's not for anyone's to decide what is needed for GA according to any personal preferences. --Niemti (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am speaking generally; I'm not going to sit here and judge the merits of your citation style. As for the second part of your comment, I honestly have no idea what you are saying to me. If you think I am suggesting that it's "for anyone's [sic] to decide what is needed for GA according to any personal preferences", then I think you need to reread what I wrote. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to review GA but for FA criteria (I've seen it, stated as such), it's just wrong and senseless. If someone answers with linking to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules - just come on. How about just properly reviewing GAs and seriously so. --Niemti (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No decent reviewer would give an FA-style review unless they knew that the nominator was seeking it. Is there really a major problem with people failing GA candidates because they don't meet the FA criteria? I think not. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

And I really saw it happening, but I don't want to point out, becuase one reviewer I remember now actually was decent (and real nice). It was explained that it's like that because GAs than go to FAs, so it should be done already. We worked it out after I said I just never try FAs. --Niemti (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers are not there to fix problems with the articles, though certainly would be a friendly gesture if they fixed trivial errors. But if the article is written poorly, uses poor/improper references, or other issues, that onus is on the submitter to fix, and if the reviewer doesn't believe those can be fixed in a reasonable time period (a week, generally), quick failing is completely in line. --MASEM (t) 17:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

And that's nice, but it's also just faster (and for everyone). Also it's not "poor/improper references", but about "completely" lacking reliable sources. That's what it is. Nothing else. --Niemti (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

To quote the Jill Valentine GAN: "lot of unreliable or possibly unreliable sources". If a large chunk of information in the article is being supported by these types of references, then yes, this is as bad as having no reliable sources whatsoever, and it will take a lot of work to fix that - making a QF an acceptable step. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, any reviewer who feels that they cannot review an article based on an IAR application of sourcing rules, instead of giving a full review with detailed criticism, should not be reviewing that article. Putting it back in the queue is a better solution than a quickfail against policy. Having said that, there is no good reason to require every source be an independent reliable source in a videogame article. WP:SELFPUB references are perfectly acceptable for non-controversial statements: 2.b. does not preclude appropriate SPS use, nor should it. The judgment of whether there are "too many" SELFPUBs is not a quickfail criteria, but deserves a detailed look at the issue with specific, actionable feedback to the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Niemti has been blocked for two weeks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)