Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 62

message: While I took strong exception to that which I took strong exception, I believe Oldwindybear was, on the balance, an asset to this project. Having been in touch with him quite a bit over the past few weeks, I have on several occasions urged him to return as an editor. He cannot seem to quit watching wikipedia, which to me indicates a desire to return. However, he's expressed concern that previous incidents will follow him wherever he goes. I would hope this should not be the case, but feel it wise to run this by his colleagues here to gauge your sentiments. Obviously, we can keep an eye out for socks; I am for my part convinced that this is behind us and will not recur. Please comment here, and be frank, as it does him no service to say he is welcome if he is not.Proabivouac 01:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would welcome him back with open arms, and I suspect that others would as well. On the issue of his previous incidents following him wherever he goes: that may be true; and there will certainly be a sect on Wikipedia that will make sure this incident stays wielded to his ass for as long as he chooses to edit here; but we have all made mistakes, and some of us have even gotten into similar situtations over other issues. This is as much a community as it is an encyclopedia; and OWB's depature has been felt across the board. I am confident that should he choose to return the project the project would welcome him back. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To say it with Deng Xiaoping's words: "I don't care whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice." I don't mind if he has multiple personalities as long as they work on different tasks and don't help each other into any offices. So don't run for office if the one suggesting you to run is accused of being a sock. Wandalstouring 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Disproving sockpuppetry is quite simple. Make a date with your "sock" when you login at the same time and send each other messages, but don't do it from the same institution. Wandalstouring 06:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this will be taken correctly, but if OWB wishes to return to Wikipedia without having prior events follow him, why not do it from a new account?  So long as there's no sock-puppetry involved, I doubt anyone will find out and he can start afresh. Oberiko 14:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oldwindybear to return?

message: I've put together a graph of our FA-, A-, and GA-Class article counts over the past year that might be of interest to anyone who cares about such things.  One interesting point is that the A-Class count is the smallest and shows the slowest growth rate; I suspect this is because it's largely feeding directly into FAs, but there might be other factors involved as well. Kirill 03:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are formalized criteria and processes for FA and GA, but none for A. Maybe some editors just don't think A-class is worth the effort of achieving (beyond GA-quality), and others simply aim for FA without going for A. -- Миборовский 03:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, A is pretty transitory... most A-class articles are put through the GA or FA wringer pretty quickly, and once they achieve one or both of these distinctions the articles are finally (relatively) static in their status. -- saberwyn 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is rather encouragin to see the steady growth of high quality article in the project. We nearly have 200 FA which is great and GA article are also increasing at a steady rate. But I think that it is intresting looking at the number of A-class articles. I had a steady drop which was at the begin of the review and the removal of many of the article and since then it has began to grow. But another factor that keeps it down is that A-class is a mainly a steping stone for user before they take the article to FA. But overall it is great to see the number of high quality articles in the Project and we should endeavour to double this in the next twelve months. Kyriakos 08:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A-class might be a victim of its own success: the reviews are pretty rigorous and anything which passes them has an excellent chance of also passing a FA review. --Nick Dowling 08:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nick. A solution would be to lower the criteria and I question whether we really want that. What really bothers me is that GA criteria seem quite easy to pass compared to A-class. So GA is quite close to our B-class criteria. A possible solution could be an autonomination of all GA-class articles for an A-class review. Wandalstouring 09:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be doable, if we have enough reviewers to go through them all. Kirill 09:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that this is a good idea and should be put to use. Kyriakos 12:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would help out with reviews if needed. I think many articles that are currently GA could easily make it to A class. A common theme of the assessment drive is citations and references. In many instances this is the only think preventing A class status, let alone B class. Woodym555 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When the B-GA-A-FA discussion first came up I recommended abolition of A-class. I still do now. GA and FA have separate, Wikipedia-wide processes for promotion and carry with them prestige and authority (for the article). A-class has AFAIK only a localized, project-specific review and promotion process. -- Миборовский 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that A-class has its uses. It is not derogatory to call it a stepping stone to FA. As commented earlier many FAs become stuck that would not do if they had undergone an A-Class review. The GA-class is very subjective and only done by 1 person with varying degrees of aptiude. The growing backlog at WP:GA/R suggests that the process is far from perfect. I think A-Class provides a good vetting process for articles, i know it has helped the articles that i have taken to FA. Woodym555 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see anything wrong with A class acting as a stepping stone to FA - I've found it to be a good process to get expert comments on articles before they're exposed to a more general audience. Anyway, as FA is better than A it's a good thing that there are more FAs than As! GA seems pointless to me - as Woody notes its only a single person's opinion, and I've seen a lot of fairly low quality articles be awarded GA status. --Nick Dowling 10:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually found GA to be useful in developing Battle of the Plains of Abraham; it affirmed that what I'd done was worthwhile, and helped push me forward. The A-class review was a way of getting people with familiarity on the topic to confirm that the article was solid. It's a worthwhile process, I find, as a way to get added eyes onto articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As well, it should be noted that if an article achieved A-class status before going FA and then lost its FA status it could still potentially be an A-class article for project purposes. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly interesting graph 

message: The A-Class review for Jean de Carrouges is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 12:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Jean de Carrouges]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Horses in warfare is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 12:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Horses in warfare]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Sino-Indian War is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 14:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Sino-Indian War]] now open 

message: Everyone, please remember that when you are rating articles for B-class, that you put the criterion checks on the template. Dreamy \*/!$! 17:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One point that may not be obvious at first glance: the criterion checks were introduced long after the assessment first began, so most of the older B-Class assessments are going to be missing them. Kirill 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milhist talk page tag 

message: The A-Class review for Byzantine-Arab Wars is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 14:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Byzantine-Arab Wars]] now open 

message: Hello.  Over at the discussion page for the WWII infobox, we are having a debate as to what images we should include in the main picture.  Any input would be appreciated.  Oberiko 14:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion regarding main WWII article

message: The A-Class review for Battle for Henderson Field is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 15:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Battle for Henderson Field]] now open 

message: The A-Class review for Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated!  Thanks! Kirill 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class review for [[Fort Bayard (Washington, D.C.)]] now open