Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 8

message: As suggested by Gnangarra about a month ago, I have started putting GAs into subcategories, by using templates.
I also divided "Places" in the Geography section between Eastern hemisphere and Western hemisphere. Maurreen 01:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, never mind. Maurreen 09:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, in fact, like the modification that has been added to the categorization since it shows that we counter, for some part, the systemic bias by having both of them. I think Maurreen's change is a good one. Lincher 14:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also like the use categories it promotes the good quality articles. Gnangarra 16:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I still don't support this move it complicates making a minor change to the GA template and adds more templates to a project that has already been criticised for having too many. However provided all articles are still added to the :Category:Wikipedia good articles it should be less of a problem. Cedars 10:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean that you think the articles should be listed individually in :Category:Wikipedia good articles even if they are in a subcategory? Maurreen 11:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it ensures there is an alphabetical list of good articles. Cedars 00:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories and geography

message: FYI - I created a discussion on the FA Talk about making their page look similar to the GA page.  I think this page looks great and would like to duplicate it over there for uniformity and such.  Your thought might be helpful in that discussion as many seem to dislike the collapsible menus and sub-categories. Since you've been working with both for a while, I thought your insight would be valuable.  Thanks Morphh 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what GA page their talking about since they seem to be referring to one that is "utterly un=navigable", but it's really up to them :/. Homestarmy 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If anything I wish we'd get rid of the GA system, everytime I load the page I have to wait about 5 seconds for all of the things to open and collapse. It's really annoying. --SeizureDog 02:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree the current format was a nice touch when the GA was started but as it get bigger its getting harder to navigate, I wouldnt like to push this on to FA they dislike GA enough now Gnangarra 02:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA Facelift

message: Featured articles and featured lists make available information on when the items were promoted so people can compare with the approved version and see whether it has deteriorated. This is done both with logs and through Template:Featured and Template:FL. I think it would be good to also be able to easily find out when GAs were approved. Maurreen 06:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how to do it to the template. Maurreen 04:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rick Block set it up. Maurreen 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think this is a good idea. Cedars 08:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Information on when or which version approved

message: To indicate the reviewed version of a Good Article, use  on the talk page (replacing nnnnn with the id number of the reviewed version) rather than just . Maurreen 22:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruction

message: Just to let you know, the GA template (which adds a star to the corner of articles like the FA system), which was deleted a few months ago before the project was established, has come up for Deletion Review, should you want to support or oppose it's re-creation. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 11:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't seem to see the listing.... Homestarmy 17:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is now closed; see the final decision by Xoloz or the last version of the review (do not edit!). The template  stayed deleted. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww, I wanted to vote :(. Homestarmy 18:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article template at [[WP:DRV|DRV]] 

message: Featured Articles and Good Articles are both Wikipedia processes to recognize quality articles. I created a proposal for greater co-ordination and integration between the two processes, so that both processes will be more successful in their aim of recognizing quality articles. Please read and participate in the discussion on the village pump. Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal 

message: Would it be possible to rewrite this page so that it patched subpages of content into it for each of the subjects? eg. Wikipedia:Good articles/Art, architecture and archaeology/Architecture. This would specifically enable Portal:Architecture (or anyone else) to provide a box on it's page that would be automatically updated whenever Good articles are added to the list here (I think by using )? Currently we are duplicating the information on this page and have to maintain the portal to make sure it is current and correct - seems like an easier and error free way of doing it.--Mcginnly | Natter 00:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use a template, like Template:GA-bio people. Maurreen 09:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, we have tried a method using subpages in the past.  I continue to manually synch Wikipedia:Good articles/Trains for transclusion on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains page. Slambo (Speak) 13:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was the subpage idea abandoned?--Mcginnly | Natter 01:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps those who were involved in the redesign could chime in here?  I think subpages could still work through transclusion even with the collapsing headers as we've got them.  Slambo (Speak) 15:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It is easier for the script that updates the list to have all content on one page. I still submit the updates manually using "Edit this page" so having two dozen subpages would be a heavier burden for me to update. Cedars 07:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any immediate plans to change the way this is done?--Mcginnly | Natter 15:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Dang, as it does put burden on the project coordinators to keep manually updating. I do wish there was a way to transclude, oh well. plange 00:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, if bots would be easy to create and would do a the cruft associated with reviewing then it would be easy to implement these changes (which I normally see in good light) but it is a PITA (pain in the butt) to try to do everything manually (it also comes with MediaWiki which doesn't update too fast ... thanks to BRION for the work put in). Lincher 03:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm not understanding what you have to do manually to this page? I'm not being facetious, I really don't know. Hence my puzzlement. Are you referring to when us as reviewers come here to add GAs we passed? plange 03:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it's what I'm refering to. As of now, it isn't too much of a job to do to add articles in the right unwinding menu but if subpages are created as this idea refers to, then the amount of work will be increasing. Lincher 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see how as you could include the little edit link right above the transcluded page and the user would be one click away just like they are now...plange 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that the page is already loaded altough if we do what is intended, then if you make a mistake choosing the right section/subpage you have to load multiple pages which loads the server and may render doing stuff longer. Ever tried to open a page and there is an error on the server, if the page is already loaded as it is now, it is much faster for the editing. Lincher 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As there are more people updating wikiprojects and portals it seems logical that there would be less total work for the community as a whole to do, if the GA page had subsections that could be transcluded. I appreciate there would be more work for the editors of the GA page, but appeal to your community spirit to make such changes.--Mcginnly | Natter 12:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkability

message: </div>
</div>
Would someone explain? --Mcginnly | Natter 11:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <!--Art, architecture and archaeology-->&shy;&nbsp;

message: The phrase "animals and organisms" is odd. All animals are organisms. Perhaps it could be renamed just "organisms"? Even better would be "taxa", but that might be a bit technical. (And on a technical note, viruses are taxa, but might not be organisms.) --Stemonitis 08:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The usage of "organisms" is much more appropriate. I agree with you that this should be renamed. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Animals and organisms" 

message: Recently, Lou Graham (Seattle madame) was reviewed and rejected to be a Good Article. I don't necessarily object to the conclusion, but the reviewer's remarks leave me wondering: did the reviewer actually read the article? It's not terribly long. If anything, I would say its main problem is that it is too short, and there should be a lot more archival research.
Please see Talk:Lou Graham (Seattle_madame)#GA_failed for the details, but just to give a taste, the reviewer asks, as if the article doesn't say anything about it, "Did her business flourish? Did she have success?" The article says (among other things) that she "[became] a wealthy landowner, one of the largest landholders in the Pacific Northwest. She owned one of the Seattle's great mansions…and 'contributed liberally' to projects sponsored by the Seattle Chamber of Commerce"; how much clearer can it be that she was a success in business? - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For your information ... I don't read the lead section as it should be a summary of the article so it only left 1 paragraph to read. After reading it I was puzzled by the lack of information I could find in that paragraph. My concern as of now is that the article isn't structured like it should have been. The lead section is too long and there are missing paragraph. Sorry if this seemed to be a weird way of assessing the article but this is my way and if you disagree then find another reviewer for this as I try to give constructive comments maybe they were just misdirected have I had read the lead section. Lincher 14:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have now reorganized the article according to your suggestions. Frankly, I think that as a piece of prose it suffers from this. In any case, I'm not really convinced that it reaches GA status myself (it was my article, but someone else's suggestion to nominate it for GA); I'm not sure that I agree at all that an article this short really gains by sectioning. - Jmabel | Talk 02:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you with the idea of sectionning but when creating a fast entry list on artists or subjects, it is nice to have the lead section as a wrap up of the article rather than the long prose given in the article. It can also serve in Lupin's popups as it only shows the lead section. Lincher 03:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process remark 

message: There's been some discussion on Talk:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Primary and Secondary Phases as to whether or not I should have asked for GA status for a list of episodes. My argument is essentially "Why not?" There's not a GA equivalent to "Good List" (i.e. a list that may or may not be on its way to Wikipedia:Featured lists status). If there are no objections, I'd like to relist the article as a GA nominee, and ask that instead of using strictly "Good Article/Featured Article" criteria, that a modification of the Featured List criteria be used instead. There are currently six lists of TELEVISION episodes as Featured Lists, but not ONE Radio Series episode list.... --JohnDBuell 16:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, reading over the GL requirements again, carefully, I might be barking up the wrong tree with my pair of articles, since they are NOT lists of links. But it may still be a good idea eventually to have a "Good Lists" program to parallel "Good Articles." Just a thought. --JohnDBuell 23:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good List? 

message: In several of the different categories on the GA page, names of people are listed in different manners. Under Music, people are: First name Last name and alphabatised by first name. Under Media, people are listed as: Last name, First name and alphabatised by last name. I suggest that these be made uniform by choosing one style. There is a third option of course: First name Last name, alphabatised by last name. I suggest the Third. What do you think? --The Talking Sock talk contribs  20:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The third can't be automated. The benefits to the project of automation are very significant so I would strongly oppose the third. I don't mind the current system where the decision is made on a section-by-section basis. In mathematics, the surname is generally remembered better than the first name where as in music, people generally remember both names in order. However I wouldn't mind a first name first system either. Cedars 11:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniformity of Names 

message: Who came up with the idea of splitting this into "Eastern" and "Western" hemispheres?  More importantly, why is Norfolk, in the UK and east of the Grenwich Meridian, considered "Western", while Bristol, in the UK and west of the Grenwich Meridian, considered "Eastern"?  I suggest instead having "Europe", "North America" and "Rest of World" sections.  Joe D (t) 15:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Places 

message: As per subject; I love this format of the subsections, so artilcles can easily be accessed through a kind of indexing system. From it I created Template:Christ, I suppose that this format will become the standard for new templates everywhere. Full credit to you, whoever you are. A J Hay 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to the formatter 

message: I've noticed that there a bunch of video game characters that are in both the Media and the Sport and Games sections. Does this mess up the count?  I'm thinking that they should only be in one or the other, and it's not completely consistant at the moment besides.  If they should only be in one section, what do you guys think? Media or Sport/Games? Note: it's even more complicated for some- Final Fantasy VII characters are in the game as well as the movie. --PresN 02:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went through and deleted the duplicates from the media section, as all of the ones there were in the Games section, but not all of the characters in the games section were in the media section.  It was 15 articles, and the count has been adjusted accordingly. --PresN 18:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Double the Catagories, Double the Fun

message: Please support bug 4288 which is an enhancement that allows general tagging of revisions. This will allow user and group defined tags which can then be used for things like this project and possibly other stuff in the future. Thanks. --Gbleem 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4288 

message: I propose we automatically allow for delisting any article which shows no signs of having gone through the process, i've delisted and/or commented on a good amount of articles already which apparently were never reviewed or commented on even once for Good Article status, and it's slowing me down, because I give comments to articles even though they've never even been through the system. If we could just delist them immedietly without so much as a how-do-you-do, we could sweep the list faster and stop template-stampers far more effectively, because alot of articles i've come across just got stamped and left, exactly what the GA system should not be about. However, delisting shouldn't be mandatory, many old articles were here before the review system, it should be up to the sweeper to decide if an article ultimately meets the standards, but the sweeper shouldn't be obligated to do a thorough review for articles which have snuck their way through the system is what i'm after here. Homestarmy 18:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Uh, if we don't sweep the list, the tons of articles which have not even been reviewed at all will just sit there, and then this really will just be a pat-on-the-back stamp project, which would have little to no purpose. Homestarmy 19:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Perhaps I should be more clear on what I mean. I propose we not have to explain delisting articles which have not even been reviewed, period. Even articles which have had just one person saying "This is a Good Article" still count as being reviewed in my book, but every other article i've been seeing today wasn't even reviewed at all, or if it had, there's no way an editor would be able to figure that out easily. So as far as I can tell the GA stamp was just put up there, they were never sent through nominations mostly, and most of the articles were not even close to the lowest of standards, much less a Good Article. Homestarmy 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *So far as you can tell? What does that mean? There's absolutely no way to tell how much work a reviewer put into his decision. If you don't agree with the quality of others' reviews, you can delist the articles. But stating your reasons for doing so is absolutely required, no matter how crappy you think the article is. And if the reasons aren't valid (like nonspecific claims of "too few refs") then your removal can be overturned. The same way a simple "oppose" is not acceptable at FAC, your input is required for every failure and delisting so other editors have the chance to fix any valid objections. Kafziel 19:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sure there's a way to figure out how much work a reviewer has put into their decision, if nobody has obeyed the very explicitly layed out instructions on how to review articles, and it has never even apparently been on the candidate page in the first place, then it is most likely it wasn't even reviewed at all, and the page was just stamped as a GA. I don't care how lousy a person's review is, if they've reviewed it, people should comment on delisting, but if nobody has even given a sign that they've reviewed it, I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially for some of the articles i've delisted today. Take a good look at Grid computing if you want, and please point out to me where exactly this article was reviewed, because I sure don't know how it got onto the list in the first place. Quality of reviews is no issue here, the issue is that no review seems to of happened at all, period, as in no consideration for any sort of standard was even contemplated when someone stamped these types of articles. Homestarmy 19:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Since you issued the challenge, grid computing was listed 11 March 2006, then reviewed and passed 19 March. The GAC page at the time said nothing about leaving reasons for passing an article; this was promoted within process. Gimmetrow 12:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *There wasn't always a process. "Good Articles" was created months before "Good Article Candidates". People could simply list articles they felt met the criteria. And the early concept of GAC was that articles you think meet the standards could be listed and if nobody objected within 24 hours, they became Good Articles. The process has changed as the number of nominees has grown, but that doesn't imply bad faith on the part of editors who either passed articles at the beginning of the project or who chose to go by the original rules after GAC became what it is today. Kafziel 19:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I was choosing articles compleatly at random today, and I saw maybe 3 of out of 12 or so were reviewed, and one review was from December of 2005, which didn't have any comment, but was by the editor who founded the whole project. We haven't had the review process for that short of a time that such an increadibly small amount of articles actually get reviewed. Homestarmy 21:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a mini-sweep about a month ago and I delisted nearly 50(!) articles. I compared with the current standard and left a message on all talk pages. All the delisted articles were promoted during the slap-on-the-template days. Recently I took a look at the reaction of those delistings. Most have ignored the delisting (either no active editors or just quietly continued to work on the article), one nominated without any changes (and failed), and one really worked on the article and got GA after nomination. RelHistBuff 10:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's really very easy to see if it was reviewed- did the person who stuck on the tag say anything about it at all, or did it just appear?  There's nothing wrong with delisting articles that never went through GAC, there isn't a "grandfather clause" for articles that came in before GAC existed. --PresN 16:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My argument wasn't to have permission to remove the articles arbitrarily, we already have that, my proposel was to allow us to just basically speey delist articles which don't even appear like anybody gave any effort. I don't see how there can be so many old-school articles listed that about 12 out of 15 articles I delisted yesterday had no sign of being reviwed at all. Homestarmy 17:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to remove an article because it does not meet the criteria, that's fine. You can't remove them simply because you don't approve of the reviewer's methods. In that case, you just need to assume good faith. And no, there's no basis for "speedy" delisting articles. We all need to provide specific reasons for failing or delisting articles, no matter how bad they are. Kafziel 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked every article that Homestarmy has delisted, but the couple I looked at he did give reasons for why it was, i.e. the criteria that they were failing.  If he's doing that on all of them, then he's technicaly removing them for not qualifying as GA's, rather than the reviewing method (or lack thereof). --PresN 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he is currently. He was asking not to have to do that. Kafziel 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just had to be there, some of these articles were just abysmal, even by the low standards of the project when it began, I don't know who'd pass some of them. I mean one of them was just a block of text and a picture, no sections, no lead. Homestarmy 19:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed new rule

message: How can the number of GAs actually go down? 81.107.36.208 03:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: a number of ways  one is delisting, another is when an article is promoted to FA it taken off the GA list Gnangarra 04:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I was just amazed to see it happen to about a dozen articles over night... 81.107.36.208 02:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One editor also found an instance where the GAAuto bot was double adding a few articles. Homestarmy 03:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That explains it. 81.107.36.208 03:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: #

message: On a different note, I'd like to ask who updates this section? Is it updated automatically, or during some periodic maintenance process, or are we simply supposed to update it manually when listing an article? If the latter is the case, it would be good to provide some clear instructions on that, like "put the article you list at the beginning of the queue and remove the last item" (not that I find this wording too clear, actually). Same question goes for the general article count. Bravada, talk - 01:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently listed good articles 

message: I would like to encourage GA folks to comment on this discussion about technical articles.  Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about technical articles 

message: CMummert already linked to the discussion but the more consenus from all sides we can get the better outcome we will have
Since the heart of the matter seems to be the application of WP:CITE in relation to WP:V, the discussion has moved there towards trying to find a consensus compromise that we can all live with and help produce a better encyclopedia with. Working together to get something worthwhile accomplished with this guideline will make all these headaches and frustrations not be in vain. I do think there is room for compromise between what the GA team would like to see for readibility and verification and what the Science editors would like for ease of consistency and professionalism. I invite the editors who have been taking part in these discussions across several pages to lay things to rest here and move over to WP:CITE's talk page so that we can garner consensus there. There is not much that can be accomplished here before things are settled with the guideline. Agne 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working towards a consensus compromise on [[WP:CITE]] 

message: Currently articles about sports stadiums - Arsenal Stadium and Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium are categorised under "Culture and society" > "Recreation" when I think they would be better placed, either in "Art, architecture and archaeology" > "Architecture" or under a separate subcategory of "Sport and games". What do others think? Qwghlm 12:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and create the section. The bot will be aware of the change I guess. Lincher 12:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I also moved Snap-dragon (game) (which was in the same section) to Sport & Games as well, as it fit there much more aptly. Qwghlm 09:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation of sports stadiums 

message: I noticed about half of the "Physics and astronomy" section is under the subheading "Atmospheric physics and meteorology". Should we split that half into it's own separate heading called something like "Meteorology" or the broader term "Atmospheric sciences"? I would hardly say Tropical Storm Harvey (2005) qualifies much as being either Physics or Astronomy. -Hyad 06:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a separate section and I prefer the broader term Atmospheric sciences. I also suggest Apollo 11 be moved to the "Engineering and technology" section. RelHistBuff 07:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we use a top-level, secondary-level format used for the V 0.5 list. This will incorperate a meteorolgy heading and other useful headings along with it. Tarret 22:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all the proposed changes, even the V0.5 look (I find it more user-friendly). Although and I mean this, don't add pictograms, it takes decades to load all these little icons beside each section, I hit stop on my browser (Opera 9.02) not to loose time. Lincher 01:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I did a draft version at Wikipedia:Good articles/redesign a while ago that we can try using as a starting point. Tarret 20:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good. Is it possible to add edit tabs to be able to edit the whole sections? Lincher 20:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the meteorology should be moved to the geology and geophysics section as it is with the featured articles. Atomic1609 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the meteorology section works well in the Natural Sciences section. Geography and more specifically Geology deals with the Earth's shape as well as rocks, while meteorology is about the atmosphere. Tarret 00:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split half "Physics and astronomy" section and possible redesign 

message: Since three of them have been given GA status so far, I was wondering:  Could we add a Television Episodes category to the Media section?  -- transaspie 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the section entitled Television shows and series taking care of that? Lincher 12:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had some arguments for why they aren't, but I just realized that if albums and songs are in the same category, so should TV shows and episodes of TV shows.  So ignore my idea.  :)  I merely seemed to have a problem with the fact that, the way Abysinnia, Henry is listed, it appears to be a TV show instead of merely an episode of a TV show...branching out into a new category was the only idea I could think of to make that clear. -- transaspie 06:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that I think about it...shouldn't TV episodes be placed in quotes?  I don't know if that's the proper way to link to them (there's not a standardized way of doing so; South Park episodes are listed in quotes while Simpsons episodes are not, for example) but it seems to be only way to differentiate between full series and a single episode that doesn't require splitting. -- transaspie 06:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television episodes 

message: Where do dramatist, such as W. S. Gilbert go? Adam Cuerden talk 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Good articles#Writers and critics, that is where he is. Lincher 01:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification Question

message: After looking at the articles on the list I have found many articles that fail WP:WIAGA criteria 2b. I know that the criteria was recently changed but many sections such as th e Transportation section still has alot of articles that fails this criteria. This makes me wonder if anyone ever goes through the list and is it possible to make list sweeping a part of WP:GA/R? Tarret 18:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We did a small sweep a month ago or so I think, I avoided delisting for inline citations at the time because that was when we had the huge fight over it, but if the criteria won't be challenged again, we can go ahead with another sweep. Homestarmy 19:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It worth having a look at Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines a rapidly developing guideline which has wide support from the members of wikiprojects Mathematics and Physics. --Salix alba (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be a conversation worth getting into.... Homestarmy 00:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Though actually, looking at the policy, it sounds like a pretty good idea in theory. Of course, how people insist it should be put into practice is quite another thing, but if this ever became a guideline, I don't see much problem with articles being graded with it in mind. Homestarmy 01:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving the GA process

message: It has the tag to indicate that, anyway. So does User:PalermoD. Badbilltucker 21:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed tags from both pages. --Salix alba (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:User:Darkestshining]] is a good article? 

message: Awhile ago, the page was moved from "Good Articles/disputes" to "Good Articles/review", and I think there's a bit of a problem cropping up because of it. I didn't think much of it before, but there's been a couple people coming to the page wanting their article to be looked at immedietly rather than put it on the candidates page, and i'm starting to think the name Good Articles/Review name is misleading people into thinking that is a page where you can get an article reviewed first, rather than a page to review decisions on articles. Could it be moved back to "Good Articles/Disputes"? Homestarmy 19:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not just the title of the page, its the lead. The lead is so simalar to that of WP:GAN that even I cant tell the pages apart without scrolling down. We should try changing it to mention that the page is used to see if an article still merits its GA status or if a nomination was unfairly reviewed. Tarret 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of the GA/R page

message: What is  used for? 74.116.113.241 02:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Talkbox

message: This is a stupid question. However, if someone placed an article in nomination as a feature article candidate, without having ever had it ranked as a good article earlier, would you think it would still be a good idea to nominate them as Good articles, or would that be merely a formality? I am finding several articles which are former FA candidates while never being considered for GA, and welcome your responses. Badbilltucker 23:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former FA candidates and Good Article status? 

message: Please join the discussion, as it pertains to GA and the Assessment project and several issues raised or broached here. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 00:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More thoughts on GA standards, citations, and assessment... 

message: I've just managed to get my bot User:WillowBot to generate a cross reference table between
*Pages linked from Wikipedia:Good articles
*Pages in category :Category:Wikipedia good articles
*Pages which transclude the template Template:GA
You can see the results at User:Salix alba/GA table. For the most part everything seem OK. However there are a number of articles which don't have the the template on their talk pages, possible because the the template has been substituted. Other articles have some minor case differences Indian independence movement is listed on Wikipedia:Good articles, but its a redirect to Indian Independence movement. 
This is just the first go at generating the table so I can modify the results if needed. --Salix alba (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be very useful, but would you fix it to recognize the specialized GA templates. Tarret 03:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good work. I made it so the GAAuto script is now aware of case differences like the ones you pointed out. It would be good to see the results once the specialized templates are accounted for. Cedars 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross referencing good article pages 

message: Phineas Gage was not a biologist/medical scientist yet is listed as such. Perhaps listing him under health/medicine would not be such a ad idea (it seems you guys are trying to keep bios and nonbios apart but he is known more for his medical state than anything else)
:Thanks for the report. I expanded the heading to "Biologists, medical scientists and test subjects" though this is probably not ideal. Anyone out there with a better idea, feel free to change it. Cedars 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor qualm 

message: Isn't the % of FA more like 0.75%, as per here, than 0.1% as mentioned on the WP:GA page? Or am I reading the graph badly? RHB 21:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The table uses the ‰ (permille) not % (percent) notation. It's slightly confusing. Cedars 23:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front page 

message: Did this ever pass GA, because it has a Ga rating on the talk page
:I think there was a GA review on it and it was delisted, let me look in the archive. Homestarmy 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 3. I'm not sure if I delisted it myself though since there were only two people talking about it including me, it might of been someone else. Homestarmy 18:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethiopia 

message: I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but would it be possible to get meteorology as its own section in the list. Currently, unless you know where you are going you might have difficulty getting there (I looked in history, geology, and materials sciences before I remembered where it was). There are 72 articles, which is almost enough to be its own category. In addition, there are 13 meteorology articles on the candidates page. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, so we can have a section with your name plastered all over it?  d;-)  In all seriousness, a good way to cull some of this backlog might be to make more sections in both areas, because I know I'd review more if Arts was split better, for instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. That's a good point about the backlog. Would it be too big of a problem if it were split? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We have have had a discussion about going for the WP:WPRV look which can be found at Wikipedia:Good articles/redesign its just that not much discussion went on about it. Tarret 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like that redesign. That is much clearer and should be used, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: I have a few ideas to keep separate the concept of reviews in the promotion process vs. reviews in the delisting process.
*Even though it adds to our jargon, I propose defining and using acronyms such as GAC and GAR to keep the processes clear. This could be justified in that parallel acronyms are used in the FA system.
*Change "So long as they meet certain quality standards and have passed through the Good Article review process" to "So long as they meet certain quality standards and have passed through the Good Article candidate (GAC) process"
*In the Good Articles tool box, define the acronyms
** Good Article Candidates (GAC)
** Good Article Collaboration (GACo)
** Good Article Reviews (GAR)
Comments? Or maybe there are better ideas? --RelHistBuff 09:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "Wikipedia:Good articles/Review" should be renamed "Wikipedia:Good articles/Reconsideration" for clarity.--agr 12:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those seem like good ways to word it to me. But I still liked the first name of the Review page, just "Disputes" :/. Homestarmy 13:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized GAR is not a good acronym as WP:GAR is redirected to "Guide to abuse reports". But what I will do is change the "So long as..." sentence. I guess "Good article nomination process" is better than what I suggested. Other than that, since there are no other comments, I guess it is the status quo. --RelHistBuff 15:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some ideas to clarify reviews

message: I've just created a template Template:Link GA, it's works similar as the Template:Link FA. However it needs the MediaWiki:Monobook.css and MediaWiki:Common.js to be updated to reflect this change. Is that a good idea to introduce this template? --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 05:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some ideas for the good articles shown in other languages

message: Hi - I'm a little confused as to how criteria 4, "It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic." fits in to an article on a fictional subject.  Thanks for any assistance. - Malkinann 11:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It fits into a fictional article because it should manily express an out-of-universe point of view to meet criteria 4. The specific guideline can be found at WP:WAF. Tarret 16:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So WP:WAF is how an article on a fictional subject achieves criteria 4? - Malkinann 21:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so. Tarret 02:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria 4 and fictional articles?

message: "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has gotten pretty dense, thanks to all the contributors working on hurricane/tropical cyclone articles. The "Tropical cyclones" subheading seems to me to be too big. Maybe we can split up articles about the science of storms and articles about actual storms?
Also, "Recreation" seems like it would split nicely into "Games" and "Sports". Is there a good icon available for a "Games" section? Twinxor t 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section headings 

message: Is there somewhere within this project which lists the newest additions of good articles by name as they are added by month? There is a similar list for FA here. --Nehrams2020 04:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA monthly list