Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Archive 3

message: We're one recommendation short on several nominations. It would be very much appreciated if even one editor could look over the articles (starting with those at the bottom) and weigh in with their opinions so we can determine consensus and clear the log. Regards, Lara♥Love 16:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R]] 

message: It looks like the backlog at WP:GAC seems to have picked up again this past month. In response, I've started a proposal for a fall 2007 review drive. You can review it here. Please feel free to make suggestions and/or revisions. Discussion can be done on it's talk page. The drive would start on September 1, which is one week away. So it would be good to get everything finalized in the next 3-5 days, if there is interest in pursuing this. Dr. Cash 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have placed this drive on an indefinite hold for the time being, due to the current 'sweeps' process going on, as well as to allow more time to work on the proposal. Dr. Cash 05:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autumn 2007 GA Review Drive 

message: There's a massive backlog over at WP:GA/R.  Alot of reviews either need more votes or have been improved so they need to be re-reviewed by original voters (and also need more votes).  If you have a second, please take a look.  The oldest active reviews have been put into a nice little table here, which should help clarify what articles need what kind of a attention.  Thanks! Drewcifer 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog at GA/R 

message: If wikipedia is going to have article rankings (how those are arrived at is an entirely different question), those should be easily available and transparent to the public. A reader should not have to click to the talk page to find those rankings. All rankings, from stub to FA, should be easily recognizable by a reader (currently, only stub and FA are).
If the consensus is that GAC, FAC, etc. are too contentious and are ultimately meaningless, then all ratings should be erased from articles until some sort of agreed-upon rankings system can be put in place. Awadewit | talk 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an extremely good point. LaraLove♥ 11:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel something of the kind, too. I would also like to see some kind of "this article has been checked for facts and sources at a certain point in time, go here to see the reviewed version". --SidiLemine 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ArticleHistory template does have fields that will link to oldid's of pages when a certain event happens, and there do seem to be some ways to finding those oldid's automatically when events happen some time in the past... Homestarmy 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are definitely on to something.  If Wikipedia is so concerned about being a serious source for reliable information (ie WP:V, WP:OR, WP:CITE, etc), then why not point out right away an article's quality?  That way it makes it obvious to even the casual reader (most of whome won't go onto  the article's Talk page) how close the article really is to meeting Wikipedia's self-imposed standards.  Transparency, as you so elequantly point out, is key.  And if people don't feel comfortable with the current rating system then let's figure something else out (though for the record I think the current system works great, and is being improved every day). Drewcifer 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction of Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions will have a big effect on this, if handled right we can introduce transparency - at least for the "[Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Quality versions|Quality Versions]]" part.  Any system for transparency should be integrated with the new flagging feature.  The French Wikipedia conference next month will be debating these issues of validation, please come if you speak French and you can make it. Walkerma 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think once we've worked through the GA Sweeps a bit we should really have a good discussion about adding the GA-Plus Icon to articles. Personally, I like the idea. Though it still seems to be be an issue some people object to. Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't we do it as we do the GA sweep? If it passes the sweep, surely the symbol should be put up. Wrad 15:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorse transparency 

message: It has been suggested that the Signpost include GA stats in the Features and admins section. VanTucky Talk 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signpost feature? 

message: Here's a simple idea: What if we had a weekly "Quick-fail" screening? One day a week where the focus is on weeding out all the obvious fails from the nomination pool? I think that would help a lot. It would give us a better idea of the work we have in front of us. Another idea: I have noticed that some subjects are covered by more reviewers than others. The literature section is rarely backlogged, for example. I have put several articles through it in a matter of days. Sports, Video games, and television sections are another story though. Maybe just a friendly invitation to related wikiproject would help. I enjoy having people interested in literature review my literature articles, and this would promote the same for these subjects. Wrad 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem then lies on who is doing the quick-fail screening and where to put the articles that pass it. Without guidance, a single article may survive the quick-fail process innumerable times.Kmarinas86 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy, keep the GAN page the same as it is. Fail the ones that don't pass, keep the ones that do. Anyone can review. Same as it's always been, just a more focused effort. Wrad 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any problem with what to do about articles that pass this quick-fail screening. I think what Wrad is advocating is that someone or two (preferably the more experienced reviewers), go through the whole list at least once per week and quick-fail articles that obviously don't meet the criteria. Articles that pass this will just be kept on the page, awaiting the full review. Dr. Cash 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, he's got the idea right. Basically it would just reduce clutter. Wrad 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess having an article go under multiple quick-fail tests (one each week) would be useful in the case that the article suddenly went bad, but you would waste a lot of time if a good majority of articles were not quick fail. Also, if multiple people participate in this, you will have to mark which ones already passed quick fail. Otherwise, many times more work would be done than what is necessary. People would be encouraged to just stick to the full review, one article at a time.Kmarinas86 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You wouldn't have to mark it, you would just have to look at the nomination date to be sure it was less than a week old. No multiple tests at all. Also, editors would confine themselves to certain categories to avoid overlap. Wrad 00:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good.Kmarinas86 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas for streamlining 

message: What about about inviting the nominator to evaluate the review, perhaps on a scale of 1-10, after the nomination is closed? --Malleus Fatuarum 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where would we have such a rating system? Another big question is how long would archives be kept? VanTucky Talk 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be somewhat difficult to make mandatory, but I think a voluntary evaluation of the review by nominators would be a good way of providing feedback on the quality of reviews and reviewers. Good idea! Dr. Cash 17:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what purpose? It's a subjective thing. Every nominator would have a different opinion on what constitutes what rating. Some nominators don't even know the criteria, which is made obvious by their nominations. Some may take failed reviews personally, so their rating would be biased. What would this accomplish? Lara❤Love 20:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Lara on this one. It seems like it would either just be an ego boost or an excuse for trolls to try and boot reviewers with bad ratings. Either way, it would be meaningless, as most nominators don't know the criteria to begin with and often take reviews personally. VanTucky Talk 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, too, but I agree with the purpose - to give new reviewers an example of a good review so they know what to do. Maybe we could have the guy that awards the Good Article award of merit (or whatever it's called), who seems to already rate reviews, and take a few anonymous samples of what he thinks are great reviews. Then we can use that as a sample but it will not be attached to anyone's name. -- Noetic Sage 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It would give some feedback on the reviewing process, something that seems to be rather lacking. It's commonly done with training courses for instance, where delegates are given the opportunity to assess the experience, even though by definition they aren't qualified to make an assessment of the instructor's technical knowledge, for instance. But it isn't a stick to beat reviewers with, it's an opportunity for nominators to evaluate their experience of the process. What's to be afraid of? How can the process be improved if you don't know how well it's doing now? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment while the ratings would be subjective, so are the reviewer's readings of how the article stacks up to GA criteria. David Fuchs (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: One reviewer's rating will be subjective, 1,000 ratings will likely even that out. But I'm puzzled by these objections based on the assumption of bad faith on the part of the nominators. Isn't that contrary to the wikipedia ethos? --Malleus Fatuarum 21:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After spending some time reviewing articles it is not hard to see that some nominators don't care/don't know the criteria. WP:AGF only goes so far sometimes, but it is hardly the majority of nominators. T Rex | talk 21:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idea 

message: I've made a proposal to add to the quick-fail criteria at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing good articles#Addition to the quick-fail criteria.3F VanTucky Talk 22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: The Good Article Collaboration of the week project is dead, dead, dead. Elvis Presley has been the "project of the week" for 2 months now. Everything regarding that project should be either archieved or deleted, unless anyone is planning to resucitate it. Yamanbaiia 15:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think with the large backlog at WP:GAN, most participants are more concerned with reviewing articles than improving existing articles. Plus, with the sweeps going on, that's taking some time as well. It's ironic though, that the collaboration program died with Elvis, who is still very much alive! I just saw him last week in the airport! ;-) Dr. Cash 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A nice irony. Does anyone have any ideas for bringing the Collaboration of the Week back to life? Geometry guy 23:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Oregon has gotten some good outside help for their collaborations by making a post on the mailing lists about every new collaboration. VanTucky Talk 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's good, but the problem here runs deeper: very few people nominate or vote for the next collaboration. What can we do to change this? Geometry guy 23:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Collaboration should be tagged historical until such time as people are interested in it. When it first started, i'd do a few small things to the article, and Terrat would do a few small things, and there was basically nobody else doing anything on a consistant basis, so I stopped eventually. Homestarmy 23:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, based on experience with the math version of this, what I suggest is to rename it as "Good article collaboration of the month" and nominate a coordinator, who updates the collaboration each month and advertises it on user pages. Geometry guy 23:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of having to go through a voting process to decide the collaboration, why doesn't just someone informally pick an article, and then we work on it. Seems like a simpler way of doing things VanTucky Talk 00:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed there needs to be a better way to do this. Perhaps a collaboration renewal project to bring back the GAco? Tarret talk 01:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about if the GA Collaboration was always a GAN Oh Hold (or perhaps a GAR)? The goal would be to improve the article so that it can be passed. Advantages: presumably there are already regular article editors who are willing to help; also it would probably be good for the image of GA if the process as a whole was seen trying to improve and pass articles in this way. Geometry guy 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might have the potential to be effective. Homestarmy 00:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and perhaps we can have a group of people work together to select the next article and perhaps a collaboration taskforce? Tarret talk 01:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kill Elvis (GA collaboration of the week) 

message: There has been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#A-Class reviews about how to deal with the existing need for reviewers for the various projects which try to engage in them. This includes the project I do reviews for, the Biography project. Someone else has suggested that it might be possible to as it were integrate the A-Class rating and GA-Class rating, with reviews being done for the new rating. Based on the current setup, I assume the final rating might be called A-Class, but that's open to question. Would the members of this project have any interest in perhaps integrating the extant A-Class reviews in with the GA reviews done here, one way or another? John Carter 21:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the subject was first suggested to me elsewhere, I have recently started another discussion on it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#A-Class reviews. Any input either here or there would be quite welcome.
John Carter 20:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA versus A class rating 

message: The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]] Newsletter for November 2007 

message: A list somewhere of the syntax for the  template topic cateogorization (i.e. Socsci etc.)? Some of them are the complete topic name, but others are abbreviations that I had to find though a backwards search. VanTucky Talk 02:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, at WP:GAPQ#Categories. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template actually accepts both abbreviations and full names of topics and is not case sensitive. If there is an abbreviation which you would like to add to the template (e.g. "Soc sci" with a space) let me know, and I will add it. Geometry guy 10:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Psychology missing from that list, or did I overlook it?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in Socsci. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Got it, thanks!   SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there? 

message: how much experience do you need to be a good article reviewer?
I have never reviewed a nominated article before. Good friend100 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None really, you simply need to have a good grasp of the criteria and fair analytical skills. If you're concerned about the quality of your reviews, you could try examining some to get some ideas about what its like, the log is here: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Good articles by quality log, and you can look at some of the talk pages of articles that have been recently passed or failed. Reviews do tend to vary greatly however, some people use templates, while others might prefer long paragaphs of analysis. Homestarmy 15:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  how much experience do you need 

message: Having just recently attained 3,000 Good Articles, it's interesting to note what the next major milestone will be. Oddly enough, I don't that it will be 4,000 GAs; instead, seeing as there are 1,689 Featured Articles, I'd predict that we'll have twice as many GAs as FAs sometime when we hit 3,500 - 3,700 (based on the current rate of growth of FA in relation to GA). I'm thinking that this will probably happen sometime around early 2008, January or February, possibly? Dr. Cash 06:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA's next big milestone 

message: This way if you like to review articles from WP:GAN, you can keep track of how many you have reviewed on your user page.  I was thinking of creating a category to go along with it.  Thoughts, input?  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people lost track of how many they reviewed already. It's nice to have this template, but I don't think a lot of people can give an exact #. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's why I linked "this user" in the template to this page, Wikipedia:Good article nominations/List of reviewers, which lists that info for those that choose to list themselves there.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice idea. EyeSereneTALK 15:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template for GAN reviewers 

message: Further to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter, I thought it would be a good idea to give the WikiProject pages a bit of a makeover. The first step is to move the formatting out of the individual pages, so that a uniform look can be achieved by just changing the formatting in one place: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Shell. I've made a first attempt at a new look there. Geometry guy 18:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makeover 

message: Since this is moribund, shouldn't Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week be removed from the Wikipedia:Community Portal, or will Elvis never leave? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week]] 

message: why don't we have the green plus sign at the right hand corner of a good article? That way, readers can know what is a good article and what is not, just like the FA status articles, which have the bronze star. Good friend100 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For an increadibly long and boring list of reasons, we don't use a GA sign in the top right corners of GA's. It's all in the archives in a GA related page somewhere, but I assure you, its all very uninteresting. Homestarmy 22:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sign at the top right hand corner 

message: Editors here will probably be familiar with the fact that the hierarchy used to list good articles on the GA page is closely linked with the hierarchy used by Wikipedia 1.0 to organize articles for release versions of Wikipedia on CD. Originally good articles were listed under 28 categories, corresponding to the FA categories at the time, which are similar to, but not identical to the current FA categories. These got broken down into subcategories as the GA list grew. In early 2006, Wikipedia 1.0 had an extensive debate on how to organize articles in a hierarchy. They borrowed a lot from the GA list, but settled on a hierarchy with 10 top-level topics. GA adopted the 10 topics, and much of the Wikipedia 1.0 hierarchy, later in the year.
So, why do I mention this? Well, although WP1.0 and GA agree on the 10 top-level topics (now used in the topic parameter of the GA templates), they have diverged at the subtopic level, with the result that, for example, films are listed under Social sciences and society here, but under Language and literature in Wikipedia:Version_0.5. I suggested to WP1.0 that we try to harmonize the two schemes at the subtopic level, and iron out one or two anomolies that exist in both schemes. This has been received positively, and so a page has been set up to discuss how we might do this at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Hierarchy. This process would definitely benefit from some wider input, so I would welcome comments and contributions from editors here.
If successful, the project could result in a more stable hierarchy for the GA page, which at the moment evolves as individual editors propose or make changes. Geometry guy 22:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been no comments on the proposals to realign the subtopics, so I will proceed on the assumption that this is uncontroversial. Any complaints along the lines of "I can't find "Anime and Manga" any more" (because it gets split into animation and cartoons, under film and literature) will be referred back to this discussion. ;-) Geometry guy 13:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The GA and WP1.0 hierarchies 

message: * Hiya, where are those quick-fail criteria? I'll find 'em. :-)
* Anyhow, given the tremendous zeal that a large number of people show in deleting images that don't have ironclad licensing info (signed by the presidents of three separate countries and certified authentic by at least two members of the Harajuku Girls), not mention the relevant text in WP:WIAGA and I assume the quick-fail criteria, it seems necessary to say something about licensing... Note that although that seems to be a direct quote of someone's brief review (?), it is not located in TALK and is not the original comments, but instead is used as an illustration of a principle. Therefore I don't think adding text to it violates any rules or guidelines about changing others' comments. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Item 2 here. Geometry guy 13:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new text added to "Good Article passing" section 

message: Since joining this WikiProject in June last year, I have followed the FA v. GA debates with interest. 
Writing a GA (about the Singaporean film I Not Stupid) has made me a far more experienced Wikipedian, and having just returned from Wikibreak, I think it is time to air my views.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves: what is the purpose of GA? If GA does an exceptional job at fulfilling its purpose, it would be indispensable and silence its critics (namely, the FA regulars). Our task would be to ensure that GA does an exceptional job in fulfilling its purpose (once we agree on its purpose, of course).
For example, if the purpose of GA is to be friendly, especially to newcomers, we should give reviews that are friendly and helpful. Instead of merely filling  with "aye"s and "nay"s, and bombarding the nominators with an alphabet soup of policies, we should explain clearly how the articles meet (or do not meet) the criteria, so newcomers will understand what makes a GA, and what does not. We should also consider lowering the GA criteria slightly, so we could promote GA as a realistic goal for new article writers, and a way to spare them from the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. (As I mentioned earlier, in the process of pushing I Not Stupid to GA status, I learnt a lot about Wikipedia's content policies.)
Of course, GA may have more than one purpose, and GA's purpose may differ from Wikipedian to Wikipedian. A young Singaporean who fights systemic bias by contributing to articles on the Little Red Dot, I believe that GA helps fight systemic bias. Several aspects of the FA and GA criteria lead to systemic bias in the selection of FAs and GAs, but in those aspects, the GA criteria is far lower than the corresponding FA criteria, making it easier for articles on typically under-represented topics (such as Singaporean topics) to achieve GA status. Using Singaporean topics as an example:
*FA demands that "the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". GA demands that "the prose is clear and the grammar is correct". As most Singaporeans are not native speakers of English, it would be nearly impossible for them to write FA-standard prose. However, with a little help, some of them (like myself) can write GA-standard prose.
*FA requires that an article be "comprehensive", GA requires that an article be "broad in its coverage". FA standards of referencing are also higher than GA standards of referencing. Referenced information on Singaporean topics is scarce, making it nearly impossible for Singapore-related articles to meet FA standards of referencing and be comprehensive. Broadness is easier to achieve, and with lower standards of referencing, GA standards are a more reasonable goal for most Singapore-related articles.
*FAs require images; GAs do not. Finding images for articles on Singaporean topics is difficult. To compound the problem, semi-free images (such as "for educational use only" or "for non-commercial use only") images are prohibited, and the policies governing the use of fair use images are far too restrictive. For many Singapore-related articles, there are simply no appropriate images to illustrate the topic. This would disqualify those articles from FA status, but they can still achieve GA status.
I must stress that there is nothing wrong with the FA criteria being systemically biased. Articles that represent the best of Wikipedia should have prose that is of a professional standard, be comprehensive and well-referenced, and contain images. However, it is simply unrealistic to expect certain articles to meet the FA criteria. Should that discourage article writers from contributing to such articles? No - they can still aim for GA status.
What could we do to ensure GA continues to help fight systemic bias? Further lowering the GA criteria that lead to systemic bias is not viable; said criteria are already low enough. How about collaborating with WikiProject Countering systemic bias and other WikiProjects on typically under-represented topics (for example, WikiProject Singapore), encouraging them to write more GAs? A brainstorming session might yield more ideas that we could put to good use.
Hopefully all of you will understand the essence of this long post. Find out what is the purpose of GA, then do an exceptional job in fulfilling that purpose, so as to make GA indispensable. Tomorrow I have a chess tournament, so I need to sleep now, and may not reply until Monday.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I can see there is no difference between the image requirements of FA and GA. If there is no appropriate image for an article FA does not require one to be included. To your second point, being comprehensive means covering the available literature. Unless a topic is so recent that the literature simply hasn't been written yet, or a topic has so little material available that it is better off merged into a broader article, the issue you raise shouldn't stop an article from reaching featured status. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, the most important aspect of GA is WP:WIAGA.  Its a set of standards that are attainable for the average editor, and it gives concrete and reasonable goals for writers to aim for. Without these goals, writers have little to decide if they are doing a good job.  The FA standards are often unattainable except for people with access to copious references and with impecable writing skills.  GA standards give reachable goals for article writers; without these goals, there would be nothing for most editors to use to decide if they were on the right track or not.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur strongly with Jayron and Hildanknight here.  GA, to me, is also about motivating those editors who can write FAs to do so (heck it worked for me - after doing about 5 GAs I finally managed to get an FA out), and also for motivating those who can't quite reach the FA pinnacle (such as Hildanknight) to still contribute to our project.  Where would be without that motivation? Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 08:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Simple and unbureaucratic" has my support every time. Geometry guy 18:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :D EyeSereneTALK 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone agrees with "simple and unbureaucratic", we can add that to the list. How about "friendly to editors, especially newcomers", "providing motivation", "an accessible standard" and "fighting systemic bias"? Does everyone agree with those purposes? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there such a thing as a 'Freudian typo'? EyeSereneTALK 09:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is then this is surely an example ;-) See the related discussion at WT:GA. Geometry guy 13:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to get the joke. What is a Freudian typo? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Freudian slip. You (unconsciously/accidentally? :-) ) described GA as "bureaucratic" rather than "unbureaucratic". Geometry guy 08:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops...fixed. Now, does everyone agree with "simple and unbureaucratic"? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes ;) EyeSereneTALK 11:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of GA? 

message: The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]] Newsletter for December 2007 

message: What would the community think of a bot generated 'Collaboration of the day' generated by random reference to each day's placement of the GA-Hold template? There would be no manual maintenance involved. One 'lucky winner' might get some outside help in fixing the few remaining problems a GA-Hold article has by advertising that article on the Community Portal. The GA project also get advertising. A daily changing request would not overly emphasize any one article but would randomly showcase all sorts of articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The method wouldn't be much different than the daily random article display found at many project portals. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a great idea.  Cirt (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Collaboration of the week would be better, in my opinion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Collaboration of the day' proposal 

message: Is there a place where I can list, or a user that I can ask to look over 2 articles, one a city and one a state to see what I need to improve before I nominate it for a GAC? Ctjf83 talk 20:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Peer review: pick one of the articles and list it for peer review, but discuss the second article in your listing. The process is quite flexible, and might generate good comments on both articles. Geometry guy 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC Question 

message: WP:PW has had 5 articles in GAN for months now, and I would like to give notice to anyone who would want to review them:
#Briscoe Brothers
#Don Kent (wrestler)
#King of the Ring (1994)
#Mickie James
#WrestleMania III
Cheers, Lex  T/C Guest Book  00:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PW]] notice 

message: Editors may be interested in the discussion that is starting here.  Happy‑melon 12:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|ArticleHistory}} deprecates other templates? 

message: Per the thought-provoking discussion I started above, I think we should conduct a few straw polls. These straw polls will help us agree on what the main purposes of GA are. Of course, straw polls are not binding; they are merely a tool to help us gauge consensus.
To propose a new purpose, simply add a new subsection with a couple of sentences about the purpose. If you agree (or disagree) with a proposed purpose, simply post in the relevant subsection, making your stand (and reasoning, if applicable) known.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreeing on the purpose of GA 

message: GA aims to fight systemic bias. The criteria should be accessible to short articles on typically under-represented topics, as well as broad overviews of large topics.
#Support The Singapore-related articles I contribute to will never reach FA status. Therefore, GA gives me a realistic goal to aim for, encouraging me to write high-quality Singapore-related articles.  --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fighting systemic bias

message: It has been pointed out to me that the absense of a date parameter in  causes problems when replacing the GA template with . The missing date is also inconsistent with  and , which have an unnamed parameter for the date of review or delisting. I have therefore updated these templates to provide a consistent format. In particular, reviewers can now add a review date to  as an unnamed parameter if they wish. If others agree, I will update the guidelines at WP:GAN to reflect the introduction of this parameter.
If desired, I expect a bot could sweep the existing GAs to add a review date using the oldid information. Geometry guy 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The guidelines have been updated. It is not necessary to sweep existing GAs as the oldid information is sufficient for a bot to retrieve the date where necessary. Geometry guy 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating GAs 

message: Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter]] 

message: This idea came up over in WikiProject Video Games where it was noted that if you looked at the total number of articles by assessment, you had many at FA, about as many at GA, lots more a B, and increasing numbers down the assessment scale, but only a very small handful at the A level.  Now, there's no requirement that an article that wants to go FA needs to stop at A first (or even GA), but spot checking other Projects, the assessment counts are very similar, with A-class articles outweighed by GA and FA.  More than likely, there's a good number of GA articles that are really A articles, but just haven't been put in for reassessment yet.
Looking at what GA and A assessments are, GA is a WP-wide assessment, typically with the understanding of what is typical for an article of that type, but more looking at general criteria.  A is a project-specific assessment, done by two or more people, to make sure the article meets all the goals of that specific Project, but typically with the assumption that the article is already a GA.  
So here's my suggestion, which would require a bot and some knowledge for each project where assessment requests are made: when an article is passed as a GA, a bot will determine this new status, and for each project the article is in, will submit a "courtesy" reassessment request.  It's still up to the projects to judge those as A-class, or if the editor jumps it to FA before the assessment, no problems, but this would basically help projects to create more A-class articles, as well as to help remove the Wikiproject-specific issues that may come up in FA.  --MASEM 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I applaud the smoothing of FA process, I find the A class particularly difficult. In general most project specifics will be solved between B and GA class; and are no longer relevant to promote to A class. In my experience A class is mostly used as a formalised peer review on the way to FA. This is what makes it all difficult in the progression. Stub-Start-B is ok, and within project. After that you have to step outside (a good thing don't get me wrong) to get GA class. Then back in for A, or wiki-wide for peer review..... Complicated and not straightforward. I think most editors just try to jump from GA to FA straight a away skipping the A level, or remaining at GA. Perhaps we should reconsider the whole A class status. Arnoutf (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only major thing A-class provides is the first level of multi-peer review (all classes up through GA require only one person to assess it).  Certainly re-evaluation of the A-class is a possible issue, but if A-class is kept, I think this is still a good idea (again, we're not automatically making a GA into an A, but just letting the project know they should reassess it, possibly making it an A-class) --MASEM 02:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Auto-reassessment in projects after GA pass 

message: I've been speaking to someone about Talk:Troilus. He reports having been confused by the fourth box showing the GA nomination failure. Should this be kept indefinitely? Or can it be removed now the article is settled at GA?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's best to combine the multiple GANs into a  box. David Fuchs (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks David, I have combined the two GA-related boxes.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should records of previous failed GA nominations be left on talk pages after an article passes GA? 

message: I'm sure many project members have useful ideas which I would love to hear here. Happy‑melon 14:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements to the GAC nomination and listing process 

message: The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter]] 

message: With the growing amount of articles at WP:GAN as well as the large amount of article at WP:PR I would propose we host an Article Improvement/Review Month to help give critique to these articles and encourage the improvement of others. Tarret talk 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Improvement Month 

message: Not sure I'm in the right place, but I submitted Neilston as a GAC over a month ago. A reviewer came along and put it on hold until issues were addressed on completeness (which isn't part of the GA criteria as such - broadness being the key factor). I took the feedback on board and addressed it. He said he'd return on the 2nd Feb, but he didn't so I messaged him. He's editted since, but not returned back to furthering the nomination. I've asked for additional comments at the GAC main listing page, but still haven't had any feedback. Is there anything else I ought to do, or should I just be more patient? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it to WP:GAR: disappearing reviewers are well within the GAR remit. If you don't get listed, you will at least get some good feedback. Geometry guy 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll do this. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Issue resolved. Sorry about the delay. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (revise post ec) The GA reviewer has now commented. Please discuss any remaining issues with the GA reviewer. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: Please see Talk:Project Chanology.  If one editor comes and passes an article and lists it as a WP:GA, can another editor immediately then come along and remove that article as a GA?  I had always thought that once listed, the proper procedure would next be WP:GAR, not for another editor to just summarily delist the article?  Cirt (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1.  I would still like an answer to my question from above.  Cirt (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any editor can delist any GA at any time by following the delisting guidelines. However, this should not be a summary delist: editors of the article should be notified of the intention on the article talk page, given reasons, and given a chance to fix the article. If reasons are not given or are disputed, open a WP:GAR discussion to resolve it. Geometry guy 09:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe what has occurred is more the latter half of what you just said, and that's why a GAR has been opened.  Cirt (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with GA Review procedures 

message: The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter]] 

message: If verifiability is part of WP:WIAGA, why do I constantly see recently passed good articles showing up at WP:FAC that are sourced to non-reliable sources?  Do editors passing GA check sources?  WP:V would seem to be a minimum standard for a good article rating.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:V]] policy 

message: As there are many B-class articles which can easily become GA-class or better I was wondering if anyone is interested in trying to help bring back the GA collaboration of the week and possibly it might bring more experienced editors to assist us. Tarret talk 19:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent ideas can be found here. In particular, there was my suggestion to help an article "on hold". But it needs someone with time and drive to champion it. I can facilitate but I don't have the time to drive it. Do you? Geometry guy 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would, however there still needs to be a better process of pick the article of the week, if anyone has any suggestions. Tarret talk 14:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviving the [[WP:GACo|GA Collaboration]] 

message: I was looking at Oscar Pistorius and thinking about reviewing it. My big concern, however, is the criterion that says that articles should not contain information about an ongoing event. Since Pistorius has indicated that he will appeal the decision to ban him from "able-bodied" races, does this article have to wait until that happens before it can be passed? Feedback on this would be very helpful. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current consensus on the "ongoing event" clause is that it only applies to articles about ongoing events (like a concert tour or the Beijing Olympics), not articles that have ongoing events within their content. VanTucky 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but will amplify a little. The question to ask, in my view, is whether ongoing events are likely to change the article significantly, or just contribute towards its evolution. I think it is helpful to ask this in two ways. First, in the abstract, would a good article on Pistorius change significantly in the light of current events? If so, then there is no point in reviewing it now, and the right thing to do is to use the unfortunately-named "quick-fail". Second, in the concrete, will the current article on Pistorius change significantly in the light of current events. If it will, but a good article would not, then the article may not be broad, and needs to be reviewed to address this issue (so, don't quick-fail, but review it carefully). If, on the other hand, the current article is fairly robust to current events, then stability is not a GA issue, and the article should be reviewed against the other criteria. Does that help? Geometry guy 00:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with what  and  have already said above. This sentiment also seems to be the consensus among what has already been expressed by multiple editors at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1.  Cirt (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about a GA Nomination 

message: * Seriously.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA standards 

message: We have, unfortunately, got two separate problems mixed together here.  Malleus Fatuorum, I'm sure that you can understand why I interpreted Realist2's remark that "After consulting the advise of a more experienced reviewer I am going to have to fail the article" as meaning that Realist2 was "going to have to fail the article."  I suspect that you can understand why I interpret this edit as meaning GA failed.  
And the answer to your question about why not fix it is because no one has any idea what needs fixing.  Realist2 say there is vandalism and reversion of vandalism, which is specifically called out as not a valid reason for failing a GA review.  He and Andreasegde further claim POV-pushing, ownership, and lack of consensus, but both have repeatedly refused to provide even a single example of any of these.  While I'm not a significant contributor to this article, I share the frustration of being told to fix something without a clear statement of the supposed brokenness.  
If you want examples of sentences that clearly assert the reviewers' claims of a missing consensus, I can point you to remarks like "I agree with Realist2 about edit wars/lack of concensus. You only have to read the last few paragraphs [on the talk page] to see that this is clear" (NB:  the previous paragraph is a still-unfulfilled request for any single example of ownership and edit warring; the entire two screens above it are about the GA review) and "When a reviewer reads an article (and its talk page) he/she expects to see some kind of continuity and concensus" and a claim that asking for clarification from reviewers "reflects the lack of concensus that an article needs".
So the conversation on the talk page has degenerated to "There's no consensus about this article" — "Everyone here agrees on the content of the article!" — "No, they don't, because all the regular editors disagree with me about whether or not there's a consensus!"  I've pretty much given up on getting useful information out of these reviewers.  But the last statement quoted above prompted my actual question, which I'll put in a separate section:  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue with the NFP article review is not that it was failed, but that it was failed apparently out of miscommunication, out of frustration with the editors involved, and without answering numerous questions posed by the editors. The role of the GA review - besides passing or failing - is to offer specific advice on how to improve the article. I don't feel like we benefited from it. Frankly I'd just like a re-review by someone else; I'd think that'd be the easiest way to proceed rather than beating this unfortunate case to death. - Chardish (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That specific advice has now been provided at GAR. I hope that helps. Geometry guy 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NFP article in specific

message: As editors with some experience in GA reviews, how much weight do you give to an article's talk page?  Do you think that less-experienced reviewers pay too much attention?  Too little attention?  Since any editor can do a GA review, do you think that the instructions are reasonably clear?  Do you, personally, think that an article with a clean talk page has an easier time getting GA status? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to answer your specific question no, I don't; it's the article history that matters. And to answer the question that you didn't ask me, I too would very likely have failed this article. It's got the makings of a good article but it's got a little way to go yet, and I wish the editors well with their future efforts. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I always read the article first, and form my opinion based on that. I only read the talk page before writing my review to be sensitive to the issues that regular editors are concerned about. Geometry guy 20:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My actual question, which is NOT specifically about the NFP article

message: This is the first GA nominee I've been involved in as an editor of the article being nominated. The reviewers seem to think that it's inappropriate for the article editors to take issue with the comments of the reviewer. Are editors allowed to disagree with, or ask for clarification on the comments of the reviewer? Is it possible for reviewers to be wrong? Are comments like this appropriate of a reviewer?      - Chardish (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And as a side note regarding the Daara J article, I agree that Good Article reviewers are encouraged to make changes when possible. I do so with all of the reviews I perform. I think that posting a message for someone to add a comma makes no sense, when WP:BOLD urges people to just add the comma. It seems, however, that the article was failed to make a point and that the fail needs to be looked at more closely. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've listed Natural family planning at GAR. This talk page can then concentrate on the general issues raised. Geometry guy 20:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec)If I may say so, sometimes you've just got to walk away. GA reviewing is far more difficult than FA reviewing, because all the responsibility is on you. So when situations like this flair up you can feel like it's you against the world. I've got no doubt that you acted in good faith, and that Geometry guy's decision to list this article at GAR is the right one. I know that it's easy for me to say, but don't worry about it, what's done is done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I have replied to this on your talk page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I really would encourage both of you to withdraw from this. If either of you, or anyone else, disagrees with the assessment of that article, then just take it to GAR, where it will get a lot more eyes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm done, too. I think a note on the article's talk page explaining why it failed would help clear things up, but I will not be commenting further on this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: No need: the GAR is providing such information. This article and its GAN review have caused more problems than they need to have done, but that is part of the nature of the GA process, where each individual GA action may be imperfect; the system sorts itself out by making multiple actions easy. I wish everyone involved all the best in improving the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Is reviewing a one-sided process?

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

message: I'm going to be putting some major time into the "well-written" part of GANs (and the other criteria too, but I'll be thinking mostly about criterion #1).  I also want to start getting a sense of, and describing,  how language and style are actually used in Good Articles, which are of course not as stringent as Featured Articles.  I would really appreciate participation and comments at WT:Good article usage. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea! The "well-written" criterion is about as subjective as they come, so it might be useful to try to pin down some of what we look for. I suspect there will be as many different writing styles as editors, and almost every GA hold recommends a copyedit. Most of us know good writing when we see it, but reproducing it is another matter ;) EyeSerenetalk 11:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, one more thing, does anyone mind if I put a notice on the Wikicouncil Noticeboard and say it's from WP:WGA, inviting wikiprojects to give any input they like on article layout and style to current GANs at WP:GAU? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please trial the first idea on a handful of GANs so other editors can see what you are trying to do in concrete terms? After you report back on we can then discuss more easily whether to support your suggestions in general. Geometry guy 22:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh ... The brouhaha at WT:V and duties at style guidelines pages have sucked up most of my time; I'll get to GAU today, I swear. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I tweaked the survey language above, and deployed at all Math and Natural Sciences articles.  This is pretty boring stuff, so I don't think this will be a hot-button issue, but if anyone wants to suggest a tweak or object to the effect of the survey on the WP:GAN process, let me know.  After some time has gone by and there are no objections, anyone who wants to survey additional GANs is more than welcome, but you can't pick and choose ... that is, do everything in a section (I mean "section" in the sense of how the GANs are grouped, such as "Miscellaneous"), and try to keep doing everything that shows up in that section, for as long as the survey runs.  I'll do extra sections myself if I can.  - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some re-writing at WP:GAU, feel free to suggest improvements. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WT:GAU 

message: Although there's a risk of biasing the WP:GAU survey if I say what it's for, it's certain that the sample will be considered too small and unrepresentative if I only ask the questions in 19 Sci/Tech/Math articles, so here's a quick progress report.  This phase of the survey will end on April 30, and there won't be another phase unless/until we have more questions that need answering.  I had considered doing some editing in the articles being surveyed myself, in order to prompt responses, but I would rather put time into indexing style guideline archives, and anyway, there is a presumption in survey methodology that any interference biases the survey, so I'm keeping a low profile in GAN articles until May 1.
You can see the survey questions here.  No one has suggested that the questions had any negative effects.  11 of 19 articles surveyed show responses, one editor per article.  10 of the 11 responses said that they welcomed additional feedback on their writing.  (If this holds up in a larger sample size, that is one very important result, contradicting what some believe.)  The only specific complaint about "fussy" MoS rules has been the rule that no-break spaces should be employed between units, and I'm very much hoping this will be a non-issue soon; an automated solution is being discussed at WT:MoS#No-break spaces discussion continues at bugzilla.
So ... any objection to my posting the same questions in more GAN articles? - Dan (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: There are certain places where we're supposed to put non-line-breaking spaces, such as in between numbers followed by units.  There's a proposal at bugzilla to automate this so that we don't have to enter   strings by hand.  Omegatron responded affirmatively in the bugzilla thread to, "Would anyone like me to survey among article reviewers and MoS editors to see if they see potential problems from a broad rule such as "number space letter never wraps"?  He is not proposing a new special character of any kind; he's asking the developers to simply keep lines from wrapping at certain places.  We could either go with a long complicated list such as User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js, or we could try something more clever, such as "always prevent a wrap at (number)(space)(letter), with the following exceptions".  So, this is the survey, do we have a preference? - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automating No-break spaces 

message: Greetings, I was thinking of asking the main contributor of the Nabulsi soap article to nominate it for GA status. However, since there are no good articles on soaps, I was unable to compare any good article with Nabulsi soap. Basically, I'm wondering if it meets the broad coverage criteria. It has sections on the soap's "physical description", "production process", "history" and the soap "today". The article is completely referenced to reliable sources, it meets the MoS, has good prose, free images with suitable captions, its stable but it might be showing a little bias (maybe and anyhow that's a separate issue). I just need to know if it meets the broadness criteria. Regards, --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting article! From a quick read-through, the only criterion it obviously falls short of is WP:WIAGA 1b (lead sections). The lead needs expanding; it should be a summary of, rather than an introduction to, the article. There are some parts that have an overly-promotional tone, and a few minor MoS tweaks are needed. All the best with this, and if you heed a hand or have any more questions, please get in touch. EyeSerenetalk 07:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes I had a feeling about the "over-promotional" tone and there's a lot of quoting. Thank you for pointing out this issue and the lead and few minor MoS problems. I am getting that the article meets the broadness criteria though, right? --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nabulsi soap coverage 

message: This was listed at GAN today. 34 minutes later, it was passed without a review (another editor simply placed the GA template at the top of the article--no, not the talk page...the article). The article clearly doesn't meet the criteria, as it doesn't have a single in-text citation. I'm assuming the proper thing to do is boldly delisting the article, but I was wondering if the nominator is entitled to being notified in advance. Can anyone help with this? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have failed it due to poor lead and unclear references. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Literatur und Kritik]] 

message: I've gotten a lot of positive and no negative responses in the articles where I posted the survey so far, but I haven't gotten any answers above to whether anyone has a problem with me posting the survey in additional GAN articles.  If there are no replies, I'll assume we're good to go. - Dan (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just making sure people see this 

message: A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA symbol on article page 

message: This barnstar has been awarded "unofficially" for over a year, so I've made it official and added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_awards/WikiProject#Awards_by_WikiProject. Hope this help push the cause forward! Best --Eustress (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er...It doesn't look like a barnstar. It's more of a medal, if you ask me. bibliomaniac15 00:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Reviewer Barnstar 

message: The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]] May Newsletter 

message: Any word of when the June newsletter is coming out? Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm sort of waiting on that one too. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Cash, poke me if you're sick of delivering by hand. giggy (:O) 08:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  June Newsletter 

message: At present the articles are reviewed by volunteer wikipedians without any condition. I think in some cases the issues are completely technical and just an expert or somebody who is knowledgeable can judge correctly about them. While only one wikipedian review and judge about the article, it's better to use a knowledgeable wikipedian to do the task. Thus I suggest separating the technical issues and  establish a technical review team, that is a group of wikipedians who are experts or knowledgable in some fields. We can also ask each wikiproject to introduce some knowledgable wikipedians.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, please compare the two reviews about Sources of Islamic law. The first one has done by somebody who says I am by no means an expert in any sort of law, let alone Islamic law, but I think that will give me a great "outsider" perspectiveand the second one has done by somebody who says I'm a Muslim and review the lead from Islamic viewpoint. As you can see these are completely different viewpoints and in some cases we need both of them.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been suggested several times before, including by me. The concept is fantastic and would most likely work. The problem is finding the experts willing to help. I've been out of this project for about 8 months (a message on my talk page led me here tonight), so I'm not sure what happened with my last few proposals, but if a page is created where experts can list themselves under their field of expertise and tandem reviewing can occur, I think that would help solve a lot of the problems GA faces with quality. Lara❤Love 07:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can ask the wikipedians who are active in wikiprojects. I think in some wikiprojects such as Military history we can find several reviewer. In some others like  Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology it may be difficult. But it's not a major problem, because few articles have been nominated which relate to such inactive wikiprojects.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try voice your concerns at the reform page since that is where the centralized discussion of changes regarding GA happens there. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, please add your comments here.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewing the technical articles 

message: Greetings, recently another user and I thought about eventually nominating the article Bayt Jibrin for GA status. It needs a lot of organization, MoS fixes, copyeditting maybe some NPOV (haven't read entire article) and maybe some more images. But as far broadness is concerned, what would be required of a village depopulated in 1948? The article currently has a history section with four subsections for each era, a culture section mostly on embroidery and I'm planning to start a demographics and geography section. What else would be needed, keeping in mind the lack of sources for a village that was destroyed in 1948? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The city guidelines found in this wikiproject don't exactly cover "destroyed" or "depopulated" cities; they're mostly there for existing cities. That being said, if you're talking about a city that's no longer really populated, I would think you should be able to find information on its history, and the geography seems pretty standard. Not sure what you would say about demographics; maybe from a historical perspective of the types of people that used to live there? The city won't have any current infrastructure, obviously, and government/education/transportation is largely unnecessary. I would think mostly you're talking about a historical article here. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destroyed village broadness 

message: If you place this userbox () userbox on your userpage, it will activate a link to a separate userspace where you can list the articles that you helped upgrade to GA. I created it because I wanted to list my GA articles without having them clutter my userpage. Just thought someone else might be interested.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helpful new userbox 

message: Hey all! I've been trying to gauge interest in a taskforce or even a wikiproject dedicated to maintaining and working on the category of articles needing copy edit, which has backlog reaching to January 2007. Already there are a few people interested in the idea; if you're interested or want to help, drop a note at my talk page! When there are enough of us interested, we can put up a proposal for the wikiproject and start working out the details. :) --Samuel Tan 01:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if you're aware of the recently disbanded LOCE. —Giggy 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FA-Team and all of the fine reviewers who hang out at Peer review, WP:FAC and WP:GAN spring to mind. What subjects and what "maturity level" of article do you like to copyedit, Samuel? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject or taskforce to deal with the copy edit backlog 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: The July 2008 GAN Newsletter is ready for consumption. Enjoy! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2008 Newsletter 

message: I reviewed the article on Flocke (a young polar bear from the Nuremberg Zoo) today, and I passed it as a GA. I am unsure where to place it at WP:GA, though. When a similar article was passed, it was placed in its own category under the Biology heading titled "Signficant organisms". It has since been elevated to FA and it remains under the "Biology" heading. The "Significant organisms" category doesn't exist at WP:GA anymore (although I suppose it could be re-created), so the closest I could find was "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures", as the closest parallel I could find was Tree That Owns Itself. I'm not happy with this placement, though, as I think a signficant animal is quite different from a significant plant. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently Billy (pygmy hippo) is listed under WP:Good articles#history in the "historical figures - other".  That wouldn't work for Flocke though since he's not yet historical.  If you added a "famous animals" grouping it would at least have two members.  There's certainly potential for more--Clara the rhinoceros, Jumbo, Cheeta, Koko, the Medici giraffe, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper category for [[Flocke]] 

message: How about taking an idea from the Spanish wikipedia and putting a GA icon on good articles as we do with a FA star? See here for an example. This would help readers separate good articles from lesser articles that have not been subject to review. This would help wikipedia in showing off its better work and reward contributors for their efforts. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read the archives here and at WT:GA; this proposal has been discussed at length before. Regards, Skomorokh 22:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well now I think we shouldn't do that at all! It's funny when a good argument proves you wrong and makes you feel more knowledgeable. Read here for more info regarding GA icons. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of us are working hard to address the issues brought up the last time the GA icon was discussed. Others appear to be sitting crowing on the sidelines. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tease. Skomorokh 00:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try teasing someone else. Trust me on this one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA icon on articles? 

message: I strongly challenge the inclusion of User:Omaga99 in the participants list on the basis of their poor editing record. This user has been suspected of sockpuppetry and other forms of abuse. In particular, this user has only made a "smokescreen" attempt at being a productive editor. David873 (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a very active user in this project, but... I'm pretty sure most (if not all) projects here on WP don't "kick people out".  This isn't some exclusive club for super-editors- being a participant just means that you're interested in helping out with the backend of the good articles process. --PresN (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If a user (including its socks) is blocked indef, then we can safely remove that person's name from the participant list. However, David873, you need to provide more evidence than just summarizing your points. Is Omaga editing poorly in general? Or actually abuse the GA system. If it's the earlier, we can do close to nothing. But if Omaga is abusing the system (such as repeatedly intentionally promoting articles that obviously do not meet the criteria) then this project might be able to do something. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About [[User:Omaga99]] 

message: A Wall Street Journal article that was published today did a comprehensive look at many parts of Wikipedia. I just wanted to point out one section that was mentioned: "Articles get rated now, too: A "good" article must have met the "good article criteria" and passed through the "good article nomination process," always subject to "good article reassessment."" I considered this interesting since the author didn't mention anything about Featured articles. We may actually be getting more admirers of the process (or the author was unaware of what FAs are). Either way, it was interesting to read about it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing this! --Eustress (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, it's not everyday that I read the paper and see an article about Wikipedia. I was even more surprised to see something on GAs! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall Street Journal article 

message: The august newsletter is ready for reading. Enjoy! Dr. Cash (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  August newsletter 

message: *Wikipedia:Good topics - A proposed process to highlight topics where all articles are of WP:GA quality or higher. A straw poll is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Good topics#Straw poll which will end on August 24. (Discussion can also take place at Wikipedia talk:Good topics)  - Cirt (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good topics]] 

message: Hi,
I am currently working on a bot that would inform WikiProjects on articles that are nominated in different workflows, e.g. as good article candidates or for good article reassessment. See User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts for details. I have however run into a problem with good article reassessments. 
Normally, a bot can identify the nominated articles quite easily by evaluating certain categories; for example,  and . However, for good article reassessments, this category doesn't seem to exist. GAR candidates are tagged with the template , which however stays on the article even after the nomination is closed (for all I understand), and doesn't categorize the article or its talk page.
It should not be too difficult to modify the template so that it puts all current nominations into, say, . Would that be OK for you? --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already such a category: :Category:GAR. Geometry guy 19:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but this category captures the nomination pages, not the article talk pages. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The two should be isomorphic, but if others want that, it can be implemented. Geometry guy 20:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I'd prefer that, because it saves me from implementing the isomorphism in SQL. :) --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Discussion seems to have stalled on this topic. Is there a consensus to implement this change? --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there seems to be no objections, and I think this would be helpful. Worst case people might complain after the fact and we could reassess then, but I think it will be fine. Cirt (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Implemented now. By the way,  does not cover individual reassessments, while  now does (that's what I actually need); so the map is rather a monomorphism. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm working on that, but it's not yet finished. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, no worries. :P  By the way, all this stuff you are doing for the project is very useful, thanks for your efforts. Cirt (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category for Good Article Reassessment 

message: proposal concerning GA and sidebar here: [[MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar#add_to_navigation 86.44.22.174 (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sidebar proposal 

message: I hope the process is fairly self-explanatory :) Please don't nominate topics you haven't worked on. Please address any questions you have about how exactly good topics are implemented here - rst20xx (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Good topics|Good topics]] open for business 

message: Shouldn't the subcategories of :Category:WikiProject Good articles which are placed on the talk pages of articles be in :Category:Hidden categories (using __HIDDENCAT__, or perhaps )? Category talk:Hidden categories suggests that this should be done for "maintenance categories, i.e. those which describe the present state of the article". It would allow the good article category to be put back onto the article itself rather than the talk page. GreenReaper (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden categories 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: There's only 4,572 of them, shouldn't take you too long. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only 1470 GAs were "selected". Gimmetrow 00:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang, you're right. Ah well, no problem at all then. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Good 

message: Article is up for reassessment, it needs a lot of work. — Realist2 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:JoJo (singer)/GA1 and please help out, both with the review and the article. Geometry guy 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[JoJo (singer)]] 

message: There have been a number of interesting discussions related to short articles, GAs, featured content and so on. After following from a distance, I've added a proposal to the maelstrom at WT:FAC#Featured_content.2C_editor_motivation_and_GA. It is intended to encourage cross-process and Wikipedia-wide thinking, as much as being a particular idea. Geometry guy 21:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely support G-Guy's idea, or some version of it.  (Btw, why talk about it at FAC?  It concerns Good Articles.)  G-Guy is proposing that a couple of GAs each day show up on the main page, with less coverage than WP:TFA but more coverage than the WP:DYK articles.  I don't know how excited Raul is going to be about increasing his workload, but there's a lot of potential here.  If Raul chooses to throw how many times articles are viewed into his selection process, it would encourage people to get some of the most-read articles up to GA. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this could also be a good idea, but I'd like to see a quick review of the article before it reaches the main page to ensure that it actually does meet GA criteria.  The application of the criteria can be spotty.  A process similar to WP:TFAR might help with that. Karanacs (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some kind of pre-main page check would be a very good idea. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK 

message: Wikipedia abounds with articles that are on subjects that meet the Wikipedia:notability criterion but may not necessarily be all that important.  So what I have been thinking is that only articles on truly encyclopædic topics should be Featured; articles on semi-notable topics should still be eligible for good-article status.  Thus, Good-Article status (or a locally-awarded assessment of "A") would be the highest award that an article on a semi-notable or obscure topic can receive.  This proposal might operate in conjunction with the one mentioned above.  What do you think?
69.140.152.55 (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, it is a silly idea.  Articles are judged by quality, not by what certain individuals or groups consider to be important.  What is not important or obscure to you might be very important to someone else.  Why should their work by disregarded because you don't care for it? Resolute 14:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Which is exactly why I mentioned one of my own articles as an example of being “obscure.”   69.140.152.55 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: enhanced notability for featured articles? 

message: I've set up an elimination drive in an attempt to try and reduce the huge backlog at WP:GAN. Peanut4 (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No backlog elimination drive till the end of Sweeps. See here and here for the rationale. You can always do reviews on your own though. That hasn't stopped. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You cannot dictate to other reviewers what they want to do, Ohana. If reviewers want to do a b.e.g., let them. A one month distraction is hardly a drop in the ocean of the long sweeps process. Geometry guy 06:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not dictating or suggesting anything close to that. I just want to point out that there are good reasons why we put on the brakes on the one in Fall 2007. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it as a little flawed logic to prevent elimination drives. The GA backlog is growing and growing. I can't see something wrong with being proactive to try and reduce that backlog. But if you want me to end the elimination drive I will do? Peanut4 (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that it made sense to hold off on b.e.g's back in fall 07, when sweeps had just begun, but after more than one year, it's only 35% done.  I'm not sure that it makes sense to ask people to hold off on doing elimination drives for 3 years while sweeps finishes. --PresN (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't have to end. But you have to do a cost vs. benefit analysis. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elimination drive 

message: Suppose that a Good Article is promoted to Featured Article status.  Later, it is demoted (maybe it is determined that it was promoted to Featured Article status in error, or the application of the Featured Article criteria gets stricter over time, or the article gets worse with more editing).  Right now I think that it goes into B-class status.  This probably is the best outcome – I seriously doubt that automatic restoral to GA status is a good idea at all – but what is the consensus regarding this?  I propose that when an article fails WP:FAR, whoever closes the WP:FARC should consider, on a case-by-case basis, resubmitting the article into WP:GAN.  (Articles that fail WP:FAR because of factual error or serious bias should not be submitted to WP:GAN until the error is corrected.)  69.140.152.55 (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good idea in principle; the only potential problem I see is that we normally expect the nominator to also be actively involved in editing the article, in case it gets put on hold and failed by default for want of attention. True, a hold is probably unlikely with an article that's already been through GA before going to FA, but it could be an issue. I'm also not sure how Sandy or Raul would feel about taking on the extra work... ;) EyeSerenetalk 18:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

text: If you want you can do it youself. You only need to check periodically WP:FFA, as a new article is added to this list, just send it to GAN. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

text: No, FARC'd articles do not go to B-class.  I have never seen (or at least I can't think of one) a FARC'd article that meets WP:WIAGA.  When an article is FARC'd, it's always far enough gone that it doesn't meet GA standards either.  This has been discussed many times; they used to be re-assessed to B-class, but since the new C-class was added this year, GimmeBot leaves assessment blank on FARC'd articles. Projects need to look at the articles and decide anew what to do with them, but they are never GA.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  a procedural question 

message: Some of you may have noticed that the GA newsletter seems to have disappeared since the last issue (August). Yes, it did go on temporary hiatus. I took a little break from publishing it for awhile due to some other things going on IRL. But it's not gone for good! A new issue will be out at the beginning of November (1-3). If anyone has any ideas or wants to help contribute an article for it, please drop a line on my talk page in the next couple of days.
There may be a few minor changes. Specifically, the GAN Reviewer of the Month may see some significant changes. I started out compiling data from Epbr123's reviewer of the week and selecting one user as the reviewer of the month. When he stopped doing that, I reviewed all of the GA reviews myself, which was enlightening (to say the least), but also took way too much time (part of the reason I stepped back from the newsletter the last two months). I think it's great to recognize some of our outstanding reviewers, but there's got to be a better and less time consuming way to do it! So, the GAN Reviewer of the Month section may not be there -- if anyone has any better ideas, leave them here or on my talk page.
Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Newsletter 

message: Currently the Arts nomination category is divided into: Art and Architecture; Music; and Theatre, Film and Drama. I want to nominate a ballet dancer (Patrick Bissell) for GA status but its not clear which category dancing falls under. The Theatre, Film and Drama category seems to be inundated with film nominations - so, perhaps, could the categories be adjusted? Maybe then the Arts could be divided into Art, Music, Film and Theatre (for plays, dance etc). Does anyone agree with me and could sort this out? --Cazo3788 (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment ballet goes under "theatre and musical theatre", which is part of "theatre, film and drama". It may be possible to find a better organization. Where would you propose to put radio and television drama? Geometry guy 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would propose that radio and television drama would be grouped with the Film category - i.e. this category would be all forms of theatre that do not occur before a live audience (if that makes sense), a kind of 'media' category. Would this work? --Cazo3788 (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arts Nomination Categories 

message: Hey, I kinda stopped doing GA reviews in a mad and egocentric bid to climb the list, so I'm a bit out of the process, but looking back we're done some minor stuff such as add the new multi-parameter templates to slim down some instruction crap, and bigger things like adding the subpage. Since I wasn't really lucid at discussions for the subpage thing, do you think a changes at GA type article could serve as a Featured Content dispatch? Sandy is a bit overwhelmed and stumped for ideas, and since we've got so much on FA it seems only fair to have you guys do some pulling and get your spotlight :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could write something on subpages and the effect this seems to have had on reassessment (see the last paragraph of this). However, I would rather do this after the election season, which (coincidentally or not) is turning out to be a rather intense period on Wikipedia in general and GA in particular. There's a milestone approaching: soon 1 in 300 mainspace pages will be either good or featured. That would be a nice opportunity to highlight the values that content review processes share. See also this. Geometry guy 20:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really whatever you want to write about; just draft it and pop over to WT:FCDW and let people know. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  checking in and FCDW 

message: I've noticed this has been mentioned before, but there hasn't really been any great interest. Does anyone else think we should have the  in the top right corner of GAs, just like with featured articles? Diego_pmc Talk 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this.  The symbol is invariably "lost" if it's only on the talk page.  ---BlackJack | talk page 06:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA icon 

message: :??? GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it gets quite surreal round here. I think he's objecting to the hold on his GA nom (thread here) EyeSerenetalk 18:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect you're right. Should count himself fortunate that the nomination wasn't "administratively withdrawn", or whatever the currently acceptable name is for quickfailed instead of complaining about it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA rewrie for [[Hurricane Boris (2008)]] 

message: I think that point 3 of the GAR criteria defeats the object of encouraging the nomination of short articles.  The criterion presently states:
:Broad in its coverage: 
:(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and 
:(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). 
Although the footnote clarifies that short articles are welcome, it is a footnote and these are not always read.  The main problem is the title "broad in its coverage".  It is clear that some people who undertake reviews think this means the article must be lengthy.  At the same time, broadness contradicts the stated aim of focus.  If you are focused, you are not looking at the big picture.
I would replace "broad in its coverage" with something like "focused upon the subject" and bring the salient points in the footnote up into the criterion itself.
The criteria must make clear that GAR caters for short articles.  At present, the process fails miserably.  BlackJack | talk page 20:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I disagree with your use of the word "scope". I have never seen a GA reviewer criticise an article because of its limited scope. But whatever an article's scope is, its major topics must be covered; focus has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Take a look at Space Science Fiction Magazine for instance, an article that has failed to reach FA, but would, in my opinion easily pass at GAN. Or, to put it another way, if an article like that one couldn't pass at GAN, then the GA vision has gone horribly wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed my reference to scope as it is misleading.  An article should cover all of its scope topics but, if the scope is limited by lack of surviving or available data, then there will be few topics and a reviewer must not expect to read a long article.  The criterion must express the idea that the subject's major topics, as you say, have been covered in full.  There is a big difference between full coverage and broad coverage.  BlackJack | talk page 05:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The ambiguity in the criterion is sometimes troublesome, but (1) I don't think "Focused upon the subject" is any "better" than the current verbiage in addressing issues of article length, and (2) the problem exists because some reviewers pass judgment by only reading the criterion title ("Broad in its coverage") without reading what that means (i.e., "(1) it addresses the main aspects of the topic, and (2) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, and (footnote) This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics." Best regards --Eustress (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  I've copied your points into the revived discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria where it seems likely that there will be more interest.  ---BlackJack | talk page 14:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to amend criteria 

message: I have moved the Good Article 2000 Football League Second Division playoff final to 2000 Football League Second Division play-off final, per the article sources, consensus at WT:FOOTY and with the consent of the main contributor. Other than the usual page move admin, I'd like to know what considerations should be made for moving Good Articles. For instance the link to the GA review is now broken - should I correct the link or page move the GA review to fit the new article name? (Note the GA review was conducted under the old article name). Also am I expected to update the Good Article list with the new article name? Is there anything else I need to do, or should have done? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving a Good Article 

message: There is a relevant discussion involving adding GAs to the mainpage going on here Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal#Introducing_GA_to_main_page. Some of the ideas proposed include creating a separate WP:FA-like box to feature the GA, incorporating into DYK or not including GA on the main page at all. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding [[WP:GA|Good Articles]] to the main page 

message: I'd like some of the thoughts of other members of this project in the discussion which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Limiting nominations?. Nikki♥311 17:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to limit nominations at [[WP:GAN]] 

message: A proposal to make some changes to the way we review Good Article nominations is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GA review reform. All interested editors are invited to participate. EyeSerenetalk 11:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA community input requested