Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/archive3

message: I've moved the instructions to a subpage: Wikipedia:Good article review/instructions.  This is so that it's easy to see what edits are being made to the instructions, independently of the edits to all the reviews that are going on. Mike Christie (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructions separated 

message: While this article is at GAR, some editor has just blindly come along and passed the article. I disagree with this, as the article is at GAR and the people there should've waited for consensus. Furthermore, if they'd actually reviewed the GAR in the first place they would've addressed the given concerns (the citation style is poor). Can someone revert this totally invalid pass and let us continue with this specific GAR. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 21:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to this  bullying and improper comment;  especially since it seems to be in the interest of a standard that LuciferMorgan has invented to the surprise of his fellow editors. It may be time for an RfC . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Anderson, I think you need to cool off a bit.  Unilateral action on a GAR that is still under discussion is inappropriate.  Also, your recent comments at GAR have shown a general animosity towards a process that has served wikipedia well.  Please leave LuciferMorgan alone and lets return to good faith concensus building here.  Our goal is to improve the article so that it will be GA status.  Several editors have requested a simple fix; you seem reticent to make any change to the article.  What is the point of NOT complying with the changes requested? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That it's not in WP:WIAGA; making it a requirement now and unilaterally is violating guidelines; some would call it cheating.  In this case, many editors don't know how to use , or find it more trouble than it is worth. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, you are no one to be calling someone else out for inventing anything, considering the completely ridiculous changes you are attempting to make to the GA delisting process section, the ones you added with ZERO discussion with those of us who actively participate in the process. Past that, the cite web template is not difficult to understand. If you can edit and article, you can use the cite web template. Period. I get that you find it to be more trouble than it's worth. Much like you, apparently, find it to be too much trouble to make necessary edits to the article you wish to have promoted to GA; deciding to instead invest all of your time harassing us, and attempting to force us to make the changes for you. It's not going to happen, so stop with the inappropriate behavior. And if you feel RFC is in order, by all means, request it. LaraLoveT/C 07:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dani California 

message: Many editors have probably noticed all four of these, but for those who don't have all the pages on their watchlist, there have been conversations with a similar background at WT:GA/R, WT:GA, WT:FAC and WT:FAR in the last few days.  I'm posting this note at all four places, to make the point that incivility (of various levels) and needlessly aggravating language is noticed and has a real impact.  Here are some section links:
*WT:GA/R#Individual vs. speedy delisting and most of the following material
*WT:GA#Concrete proposal and most of the following sections.  Both this and the above cover much more than "aggravating" posts, but that's a topic in both these pages
*WT:FAC#Could everyone be a bit nicer? Note Raul654's comments about "snowball oppose" paralleling comments on WT:GA/R about "speedy delist"
*WT:FAR#Notification: I go fuck myself An extreme case, admittedly, but it worries me that Bishonen's response doesn't seem a surprise after reading the other pages.
I don't have a prescription for this, but it doesn't seem coincidental to me that these threads are all going on at once.  Mike Christie (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility and the zeitgeist 

message: I'd like to suggest a slight rewording of review step 5 - rather than "stating the problem(s)." it could be "detailing the problem(s)."  this would suggest to the reviewer that rather than stating "There's not enough citations in this article", perhaps what s/he should be going for is more like: "There's not enough inline citations in this article - anything that's controversial should be cited, like here, any facts and figures should be cited, like here, and any quotes should be cited, like here." I believe that changing the wording would encourage reviewers to be more specific in their public assessment of the problems with any article up for delisting, and so that would be more helpful for contributors to the article to understand the concerns and to work towards fixing them. -Malkinann 08:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This again goes to show we could use some boilerplate texts - I am afraid my Wikitime is too limited now to be bold and create them myself, but I hope my evasion of Wikipedian duties will not discourage some other brave soul from composing them! PrinceGloria 11:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording to review step 5 

message: There are a number of changes which have been suggested to the instructions/guidelines, and I think it is worth having a go at some rewrites. I have made a start at Wikipedia:Good article review/guidelines. So far, I have reformatted the page, copied in the archiving instructions, expanded the first paragraph a bit, and made a few other minor alterations to clarify current practice. I hope that this much is entirely uncontroversial. There is more that I would like to do, but I am going to try my damnedest to produce something that offends no one, and everyone can live with. Main items on the agenda:
* incorporate the "speedy" and "WP:ATA" issues raised above;
* rewrite the archiving instructions to clarify them, and make them less numerically prescriptive.
Other editors are most welcome to join in, and it would be particularly helpful to have a simultaneous discussion going on here. I will not switch from the current /instructions to the proposed /guidelines without consensus. Geometry guy 15:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should have an essay:  "So your article's up for GA Review?"  with an explanation of how it works and how to use the review to advantage, and how to keep the GA-status. ? -Malkinann 01:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've had a bit of a punt at an essay on GA/R which can be found at User:Malkinann/Good article review essay - please give me feedback on it on my user talk page. -Malkinann 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adjusting the guidelines

message: This article was delisted "per review" according to User:Exarion. He has delisted the article and deleted the discussion from GA/R without archiving it. It did not have an adequate number of recommendations to warrant delistment, and I had just added a comment a few hours before. I am restoring the discussion and amending it to show that a rogue editor has hastily delisted it. LaraLoveT/C 05:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think failing to archive a review properly necessarily makes this person a rogue editor... Homestarmy 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use the term "rogue" in the context of a wanderer... a vagabond as he's not an active participant in this project. Oh, and it's not just a matter or failing to archive. The article should not have been delisted citing this process when a consensus had not been reached. LaraLoveT/C 06:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He might have just been bold... I think we're all starting to repeat ourselves in that review anyway. -Malkinann 01:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just hoping to avoid a backlash. Articles like this one shouldn't even be brought here. They should just be delisted. But delisting before a consensus has been reached has the potential to cause drama... which there has been too much of here in the past few weeks until just recently. I don't feel like going through that again. LaraLoveT/C 04:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Rite of Spring]] delistment. 

message: Something that informs newcomers that we GA/R regulars are aware that GA has lower standards than FA.
*Smacks self in face to distract from mind-numbing pain*
Does anyone else find it annoying that every other custodian who jumps on the GA/R page finds it necessary to point this out? As if GA should just have no standards at all?!
/vent-fest. Sorry. I had to get that off my chest. LaraLoveT/C 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to page header 

message: A month-long backlog elimination drive has started. There are several awards to be won. For details please go to Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked at the history of the GAC page, I predict a flood of delist recommendations over the next few weeks. Editors are passing articles like a baby passes gas. I've not looked at any of them, but I just seriously don't think one editor can be so fortunate as to review multiple good articles in a matter of minutes. So, this is just an FYI to everyone. LaraLoveT/C 06:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think it's important that the backlog is cleared. I'm spending on average an hour on each article (I've filled up about 8 or 9 pages, that about 16 sides of A4 paper with notes) - most of my articles that I've done are on hold - I've had a look at a few of the articles, and although there are a few questionable ones being passed, the majority are, imo, fine. I may not be being overly harsh; at the same time, these are GACs and not FACs. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 23:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love how people always point out that GAs are different than FAs here. Anyway... I, too, think the drive is important. That wasn't my noted concern. In the midst of helping clear the backlog myself, I noted that there are several editors plowing through multiple articles in a matter of a few hours. Being a reviewer (albeit one that spends hours on reviews pointing out all errors and correcting many myself, which is far more detailed than most), I know that many articles cannot be competently reviewed that quickly. For that reason, I expect a flood of GA/R nominations in coming weeks, as I noted in my post for those editors, such as myself, that actively participates in GA/Rs on a regular basis. LaraLoveT/C 05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC backlog elimination drive 

message: MiszaBot II seems to miss out subsections when archiving, so I archived one manually myself. Geometry guy 12:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I have noticed that many of these noms have been sent to the archives quickly.  Unless it is a WP:SNOWBALL issue (articles egregiously out of line) we should probably assure that any articles appearing here spend at least a few days even if there is an overwhelming consensus to delist; hoping that someone will come along and fix the problems.  Many articles here are not outrageously bad; I have seen much worse articles come back from the dead after long times and lots of work due specifically to WP:GA/R. (anyone remember Michael Jackson?)  Just be certain that EVEN in the face of clear consensus, if it appears that the article can be fixed that we give the custodians of said article the time to do it... There is no rush, and a week is not too long to spend on this page.  Again, unless the article is just plain bad, don't archive it until we are SURE no one is going to come along to fix them... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. I had a different point of view. But I respect yours and will stop (or slow down, rather), as I'm the one that's been clearing the page. I looked at it as there was consensus, and the fewer listed on the page, the greater the chance that remaining articles would get further recommendations. I've posted GA/R adverts everywhere I can think of...... except the advert banner... I should make one! Anyway, yea, to get participation up at GA/R. I suppose I'm a little overzealous and used to the all or nothing participation from custodians. They're typically either here fighting to keep it with all they've got (either a desire to improve it, or a desire to prove all of us wrong), or they're totally no where to be found. But I'll wait on the archiving until it's been a few days since the last recommendation. Lara♥Love 03:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would think to give it a week since it first appears at GA/R.  That way, anyone who cares has a chance to fix any concerns.  Again, snowball concerns should be delisted post-haste; but in cases where people at GA/R ask for fixes, we should, you know, give people a chance to fix stuff. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I shall curb my enthusiasm for keeping the list short. :p Lara♥Love 05:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw the edit.  Had a mild chuckle.  Emphasis on the mild...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I try to lighten things up and bring a little laughter into it and you have to make comments like that... I'm hurt. No, really. I'm sobbing uncontrollably here... emphasis on sobbing. Lara♥Love 06:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Laughing uncontrollably.  Emphasis on the "hing".  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it. :/ Lara♥Love 06:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Jayron... I know that this issue has been resolved, but I was starting to think the same thing.  I won't repeat what has already been said... but agree with Jayron... the reason why I like to wait a week is because some people can only log on once a week.  It does no good if they log on after the issue has been closedBalloonman 18:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, Balloonman... I don't need you on my back too. I'm skinny... I can't carry all this weight. ... You hear that? It's my fragile frame cracking. :P Lara♥Love 18:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm not a light wieght either... :) Balloonman 19:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acting too soon 

message: It has been noted in a current nomination that it would be helpful in some cases for Wikiprojects interested in a particular article to be notified. Many of them advertise their GA and FA articles on their project pages. They may be willing to make corrections to articles that would otherwise be ignored and delisted. Perhaps, when nominators go to the article talk page to post the notification, they can also post notes on the talk pages of those Wikiprojects for which there are banners. Lara♥Love 14:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps something like the way bots do it when they're challenging images without a fair use? Leave a note at the project, at the main editor's talk page (if any), and the article's talk page? (whew!) Wrad 14:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another idea I've been toying with. Possibly a barnstar award for editors who rescue a GA on the verge of delisting? Correct me if this already exists... Wrad 16:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't like that idea.  Barnstars are for people who go above and beyond.  They are awarded by individuals for doing what the individual believes is superb or unexpected work.  Saving a GA that one is invovled with is not, IMHO, barnstar worthy.  If you care about the articles you are working on, then you should work to preserve the accolades your articles have garnered.  I oppose any effort make receiving a barnstar a part of a process.  We don't give barnstars for getting an article to FA or GA status, we shouldn't give one for preserving said status.  (especially when it becomes, as is often the case, several editors working together to save an article.)Balloonman 16:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that it would only be or special cases, such as in the rare Rescue from Deletion Barnstar. Oh well. When all is said an done, though, barnstars can be given by anybody for just about anything. I've seen some pretty lame ones out there Wrad 17:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have too, but I don't think they should be given out in this manner.  If you see somebody make tremendous work on a GA delist candidate, then you are free to give that person a barnstar.Balloonman 17:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Besides having every project template code handle it, what would it take such that if an article is up for GAR/GAD, to update that project's assessment template to change the "GA" to "GAR"/"GAD" and propagate that to the appropriate project pages?  (Once possibility would be to have the project assessment template, when presented with a GA that's gone to GAR, to create an appropriate category "Such-and-such Project Good Articles up for Review").   Yes, this put an onus on the project templates, but that's effectively spreading the work around.  The only problem that I see right now is that I don't think these assessment templates "fail" gracefully in that an unknown classed spelled out in the article would fall out as a "unclassed" article instead of being still noted as a GA within the project.  (looking at the code for Template:cvgproj  as a reference case). --Masem 17:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we already require that the notice be placed on the article talk page... If an article has NO ONE watching it for a week (the recommended minimum time to spend at GA/R) then I am not too sure that any additional notices will help... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just do it. We don't get that many noms belonging to Wikiprojects. Shouldn't take me more than 30 seconds per nom. If it ups the chances of the article being saved, I'm not bothered by it. Lara♥Love 19:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification process 

message: I was thinking about posting a review for Space Interferometry Mission, in light of recent discussion on the talk page. I came here first to discuss, and so it didn't seem pointy. I think it could go a long way toward determining consensus on GA and future events. IvoShandor 02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem leaving this article on the list, even though it is speculative.  WRT the other speculative article, the 2007 Texas Football article, THAT article is bound to see massive changes in the next 4 months.  It will become permanently stable in January, so there is little problem with it not being considered for the a short time.  This article will see little change for many years, as the mission does not even have a hard launch date.  Even though both articles technically deal with an uncompleted event, the nature of the event dictates that each article be handled differently.  If this were an ongoing space mission with massive amounts of new info from it coming in every week or so, I MAY be inclined to go for a delist on it.  But this article stands little chance of seeing massive changes, so is largely stable. Apples and oranges, really.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible GAR 

message: Suppose that a GA article is placed under GA review, then a majority of reviewers confirm its GA status and the review is closed as keep listing. Can a single editor then turn around and tag the article for POV immediately afterwards, if there has been no material change to the article since the GAR? Would such action violate the GAR consensus and thus, the tag could be removed? Looking for your thoughts. Thanks. Majoreditor 04:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they tag the article for NPOV, there's no reason why you can't un-tag it.  And if someone did delist it purely because of the NPOV tag (ie. without a GAR), then it would OK to relist it, or bring it here and have someone else do it.  The entire process is very informal. Giggy Talk 07:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on NPOV tag following GAR review 

message: I just noticed the backlog tag on the top of this page.  I don't know if that's really necessary.  Is 19 pending reviews really cause for concern?  The guidelines to resolving a review state that we should wait around one week until after the last comment or vote.  There's a few pending reviews, but those will eventually be resolved based on its time under review, not by any efforts of editors, right?  In fact, according to those guidelines, asking for experienced editors to contribute will just slow things down. Drewcifer3000 04:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the ones on there are only needing a couple comments to reach consensus. Because the quality reviews of the backlog elimination drive are being completed now, GA/R is about to blow up. Not to mention the sweeps of all GAs that we're about to begin. The project finally has adequate participation. We just need the numbers on each nom. I only have it viewable for that reason. If you feel it's unnecessary, hide it, but don't delete it. Having it on the edit page (even if it's hidden from the project page) keeps the list on the GA project open tasks template. Lara♥Love 20:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  It didn't seem like a huge issue, just something odd I noticed. Drewcifer3000 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog?  Really? 

message: In the past few days, I have had to leave notices on article talk pages for articles that have been up for GA/R for several weeks.  If no one who cares about the article knows the discussion is going on, we can't fix it!  Please ensure that if you bring an article up for discussion, you drop a note on the talk page letting people know about it.  Our goal is to make a better encyclopedia by making better articles, not simply assigning ratings to articles.  Please ensure that all due process is done to ensure that SOMEONE who cares about the article has a chance to address concerns.  I had to un-delist one today that had 6 delist votes; it was a false consensus since NO ONE was given a chance to respond of fix the article.  Lets make this work better, eh? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE leave a notice on the talk page of the article you are bringing up for review!!!!! 

message: Hmm...I don't think there are any other GAR "regulars" who haven't already said something in this one.  I'm not sure on consensus, but I want to know if anyone else has something to say before I make a judgement. Giggy Talk 01:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering no one left a message on the talk page, I suppose we should give the custodians some notice and let them have an opportunity to fix it. At least one article was delisted and archived today that did not have a notice on the article's talk page, as Jayron noted above. In fact, Jayron archived it, then reverted it, but it was archived shortly thereafter. Lara♥Love 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it appears that the rollins article is being actively fixed, so I have no problem leaving it around for a few more days.   I did the revert of the archeoastronomy article.  But it looks like someone else delisted it.  Whatever.  Still, we DO need to work harder at notifying the article talk page when a discussion is initiated.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll leave Rollins up a little longer and then decide (you can change comments based on changes in the meantime).  As for archeoastronomy, I have since un-delisted it. Giggy Talk 06:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Note that I didn't discover that the article was at GA/R until about 10 days after its nomination, but I'm confident I'll be able to reference the rest of the article by the end of tommorow. CloudNine 09:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Henry Rollins]] 

message: I just closed this nomination as WP:FORUMSHOP.  I didn't feel as if we needed to wait 3 days to rehash what we just discussed less than 3 days ago.  I also posted a message on the Mother Theresa talk page explaining that if the critics of this article wish to be taken seriously then they need to wait before nominating it again.Balloonman 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, any further MT GA/R's which continue to be started back to back and don't have any specific examples of problems should just be deleted immedietly, no archive. These repeated review requests which clearly have no chance at present really seem to be skirting the edge of WP:POINT. If someone starts a review with real evidence, (and not just "It isn't neutral, so there.") then I think that's fine, even if it is started in only a few days or something. Homestarmy 01:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole sitchuashun needs help from mediators before we take it up.  It reads to me like some interpersonal shit is going on between the editors of the article... and I'd rather not take sides or get stuck in the middle of it.  Once everyone has worked out their stuff, we can look at the article objectively, but until then, it looks like people are trying to use GA/R to mediate an edit war, and that's not what we are here for... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we should archive on sight, not delete.  Keep the record in case it is necessary.  For example, it was real easy to find the speedy closed request because it was in the archive.  As a general rule, I think we shouldn't review articles that have been recently reviewed unless a month or more has passed since the conclusion of the last review.Balloonman 03:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with either. Personally, I'm not against forgoing the archive and just reverting the nomination. In this case, that is, as they've been told twice now that it's not appropriate to nominate so closely. The first renominate was after what, three weeks? We closed it stating it was too soon, so they renominate four days or whatever later. Ridiculous. Should it come up again within the next month, revert it. That's my 2 cents. LARA♥LOVE 05:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all the time i've been watching GA/R, I don't think this has actually ever happened before, generally people get the point after the second review. I don't think there's a great pressing need to make a new general rule about timeline here, I mean, its only one article involved. Homestarmy 15:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The second nom was 12 days after the first one closed.Balloonman 20:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I know I am probably considered to be part of the edit-warring/forum-shopping problem, but I had already posted similar comments about this third referral at Talk:Mother Teresa#Good article review. I was quite frankly amazed by the third GAR even though I had felt the article was unbalanced. It appears that I am not the only person who was active or watching this page, saw the second GAR, went over to try to help improve the page, immediately got labelled as a troll and got dragged into what was happening. Unfortunately even now there still seem to be two editors there who are taking a line of it being everybody's fault but theirs. I'll be interested in suggestions from experienced people here on how to avoid getting trapped in a similar way again. (Using my talk page or emailing me is better than responding to this request here.) As for the other discussion here, I certainly think that its worth archiving speedy closed nominations, not deleting them. And I think gut instinct rather than a set time limit is the way to decide whether a renimination is too early. --Peter cohen 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mother Theresa 

message: I have started a discussion over at the GA criteria page about the requirement of in-line citations in GA articles.  Hopefully this should clear up quite a bit of debate over at WP:GA/R and elsewhere.  Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-line citations and potential changes to GA criteria 

message: Is anyone else bothered by the excessive use of boldface type in certain GARs, such as RevoPower?  Maybe I'm just picking at nits, but I find it annoying. Majoreditor 20:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It started many months ago, but i've never been really annoyed by it. The boilerplate text for the GA/R template is kind of annoying though, since its just repeated over and over as you scroll down, and in short reviews, I think it gives the illusion that there's more commentary on the GA/R than there really is. Homestarmy 02:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Over)use of '''boldface'''? 

message: Just as a heads up, I created this template to make it easier to create GAR reviews.  An example of it in use can be found at User:Giggy/GAR template preview.  I also changed Wikipedia:Good article review/guidelines to note this. Giggy Talk 02:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  Great idea.  Though I'm a little confused about the (De)listing line.  What's that all about? Drewcifer3000 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It contains links to edit WP:GA, Template:GA number, the article's talk page, and WP:GA/R.  When you close the debate and archive, you have to edit all those pages (in cases of delisting, or of giving the article GA status).  The article talk and GAR need to be edited regardless, so it just makes it a bit easier. Giggy Talk 03:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought GimmeBot or something updated the GA count template automatically....? Homestarmy 03:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. It also sorts and corrects listing errors. I always update the count myself, however, so that the number is as accurate as possible. If it's no longer necessary, the edit link beside it could be removed. :/ As far as the template goes, very nice. Lara♥Love 04:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, also, tho. Looking at the (De)listing line. I take it you have them in order of steps? I don't know how everyone else does it, but I archive the discussion first. Then go to GA, delist the article and include the link to the archived discussion in the edit summary. Update the count. Then I go to the article talk page and leave a message with the link to the discussion there as well. Lara♥Love 04:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's in a totally random order :)  Feel free to change it to the order you prefer.  And yes, I update the T:GA count myself too, even though the bot does it.  Don't trust bots! Giggy Talk 05:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I swapped it. I think the number of GA project templates doubled today. :p Lara♥Love 05:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope :) Giggy Talk 05:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I sit corrected. I guess our three didn't add much, lol. Lara♥Love 06:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at th etemplate now, is that what you meant? T Rex | talk 05:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:GAR]] 

message: I'm so glad you finally said this, Joopers: "we're just to busy and have to much work to help editors - or even be courteous (sic)". This came up the last time, too. I do help. I make many many many edits to the majority of articles I review. All the little non-WIAGA nitpicks I have, I fix myself. Sometimes I'll list them in hopes that the custodian will care enough about quality to work on those things as well, but at the first sign of bitching, I just do it myself. 
Here's the issue with you. What you find as discourteous is the fact that your requests for expanded comments were ignored, so you blew up all our project talk pages rather than go to the talk pages of those editors whose comments you wanted expanding. Many editors don't return to a GA/R discussion unless their prompted to. Why would they? They've already made their recommendation. Perhaps you're a single-task editor. But I'm not. I've got all sorts of too much stuff going on, so I don't have time to double check everything. I can't even remember to keep up with many tasks without gentle reminders, but I always finish what I start or get someone to help me if I need it. You don't want editors to help if and when they have time; you want it to be required. What that results in is editors leaving the project because they don't have the time to meet those demands.
95% of my time on WP is invested in this project. I'd estimate that probably over 5,000 of my 6,500+ edits were for this project, either for reviews (for which I have no less than 500 between GAC and GAR), in project space or in editing articles for the project. I've got two task forces to maintain quality of GAs and until sweeps started, I was a regular voice and archivist at GA/R. So how am I to be courteous and comment with a smile when editors come here and alter what they think our project should be because they're upset about how their GA/R went? Lara♥Love 15:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about other editors' experiences, but I found the GA/R reviewers to be hands-on helpful when an article I was involved with came up for review. Lara and other reviewers were very kind and made several helpful edits which improved the article. My two cents is that GA/R is a nicer, more helpful forum than many others I've seen on WP. Majoreditor 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely echo Major's statements about reviewers being hands-on helpful. Almost every review I do, I end up doing a bit of copyediting myself. And I've noticed this in many others. VanTucky (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all of this varies from reviewer to reviewer. I think the thing we need to remember most is the ultimate goal of all of this is to improve the encyclopedia, I assume we are all here to do this. People should be nice, civil, whatever, sometimes what seems curt and discourteous in print can have no ill-will behind it at all. We should all remember AGF, and the real purpose we are here. I haven't ever felt like reviewers were too heavy-handed, or mean, maybe my experience is different. Recently an article I wrote was nominated and failed, I talked a bit back forth with the reviewer and the experience was helpful, it articulated what needed to be done still. Sure not all comments are helpful but I don't think because of this reason we should assume that GA or the criteria are at fault, sometimes comments just aren't that helpful, this should be taken into account in reviews, I assume it is already. Just my blathering two cents worth. IvoShandor 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too busy to help

message: There's been a few comments that the situation is getting too complex, being spread out here and at WIAGA. Laralove completely disingenuously suggested I've been bombing all the project pages in a deliberate attempt to destable the project. How dare you. At the time of my query I had commented only here and WT:WIAGA. My comments on Wikipedia talk:Good article review/guidelines came after, and I have not, to date commented at WT:GA. Just basic falsehood - but I'm getting the measure of her now, the gates are shut and no one's coming in to her project without the school tie.
Simply put, the issues are this:-
#Demands for blanket inline citations are not required by policy but they are being demanded in this project. No where has it ever been required that all facts (no matter how trivial) require inline citations.
#Apparently, according to Drewcifer, this is because the WIAGA criteria are too ambiguous. I disagree and think he's got the wrong end of the stick.
#The established practice at FAR is to provide fact tags or examples where reviewers think the article requires them.
#GA/R has a culture where principle authors aren't respected, where there isn't even enough time to read through articles properly, let alone fact tag them, and where it seems people have set up their own wiki empire completely contrary to the spirit of this project.
I have tried to affect some change from within here. You can see my manifesto as one extreme and Lara's "We changing nothing for you" position as another; but be in no doubt, unless this project starts to compromise, I shall start trying to build consensus elsewhere. It might be time we had another airing of what the purpose of the GA system is. --Joopercoopers 10:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created wikipedia:When to cite to address these issues where the FAC and FAR are concerned. Your input there is welcome. Raul654 11:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redux 

message: Further to the mass of train articles reviewed awhile back, I still have a few I intend to eventually list for review. I do not wish to mess around with updating various GA pages (I get confused easily), and that's why I haven't delisted them personally. Since the GAR page is backlogged, it'd be better to swiftly deal with these clear cut cases. If possible, could a / some GA reviewer (s) go through the list below, and then review these articles? It's obvious they fail, no offence to anyone, so if they were promptly delisted it'd save GA/R (and me) some time which could be better spent elsewhere. The articles are the following:
# Danske Statsbaner has four sporadic citations, way below the requirement.
# Inverclyde Line has four sporadic citations, well below GA standards. 
# New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway has five sporadic citations which fail to use a citation template, and the article is below the standard.
# Maglev train is extremely listy and needs a cleanup, below GA standards. 
# Refrigerator car has six sporadic citations (below standard). 
# RER has seven sporadic citations, so needs more verification.
# Rugby railway station has only one citation.
# Tay Rail Bridge has four sporadic citations (below standard).
# London Paddington station has only sporadic citations and is stubby in areas.  
Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 09:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the criteria appear to be changing away from "cite everything", do these articles, in your opinion, have any specific issues besides citations? (that seems to be the common theme between them) Drewcifer 03:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are the articles that survived the last listing. Lucifer listed them, here on the talk page to avoid blowing up GA/R. Jayron and I went through and delisted many, but not these. I'll look over them soon. It's been on my mental to-do list, I just haven't gotten to it. Many of them need work on prose and layout. They have proselines in many cases and can be very stubby. I recall many had issues with their lead sections as well. And there's been no consensus on changing our citation standards. LaraLove♥ 04:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Train articles 

message: With the "dramatic" goings on in Portugal at the moment, this article is undergoing various mini edit wars and isn't particularly stable right now.  Just wondered what the consensus was on listing it for review?  The Rambling Man 17:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably a temporary phenomena. My view is to wait a day or two for things to settle down and we can take stock then. TerriersFan 17:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't really care so much if an article becomes unstable after becoming a GA, because really, its bound to happen for many articles anyway. But if the instability is resulting in an article where no recent version is any good, then there's problems. Homestarmy 21:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article shouldn't have passed GA due to the instability problems. LuciferMorgan 11:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was it unstable as it was being passed, or unstable after being passed? Homestarmy 15:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears as if there was some edit warring regarding the tense of a particular sentence. It's resolved now. There's also been some chronic reverting of breaking news. It appears some editors are more into the Wikinews type of writing. This is another example of why current events shouldn't be GAs. LaraLove♥ 17:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stability of [[Disappearance of Madeleine McCann]] 

message: There's a grand total of 31 active GA/R's, way too many.  So, in an attempt to take care of that, I've made this handy table of GA/R's, documenting the vote count (not counting the original nomination), if any improvements have been made, and a request of action from GA/R regulars.  Without VOTES nothing will ever happen.  These are the oldest 13 8 6 active reviews: Drewcifer 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article(GA/R)                            	Votes               	Comments
Henry RollinsGA/R                        	Delist = 5, Keep = 4	CloudNine is still working on it.
Cannabis (drug)GA/R                      	Delist = 3          	SidiLemine is still working on it.
Bringin' on the HeartbreakGA/R           	Delist = 4          	Some improvements made by myself (original nominator).  Needs more votes.
National Ignition FacilityGA/R           	Keep = 1, Delist=1  	Only 1 vote!  Please review the nomination and vote!
St Thomas the Martyr's Church, OxfordGA/R	Delist = 3, Keep = 1	Suggestions made to improve article by nominator (myself), none of them have been addressed as far as I can tell.  Needs more votes.
Music of HungaryGA/R                     	Delist = 4, Keep = 1	Needs more votes.
I got a little bit bold and archived a few discussions.  Feel free to complain about it on my talk page. Drewcifer 20:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to ration my wikitime, but have decided that I'll allow myself one GA/R from this list a day in order to help.--Peter cohen 08:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Drew. I'll go through the list this afternoon while my son is napping. LaraLove♥ 13:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome!  Way to go Peter and Lara.  Baby steps. Drewcifer 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA/R Backlog and you! 

message: In reviewing the current GA's in mathematics, I noticed that as well as the commendable GA/R of Derivative, there has also been a review and delisting of David Hilbert. I agree with the delisting, but I don't think it was sensible to snowball the discussion without some expert input. (Even though this is a biography, a significant portion of the article is quite technical.)
I have had personal interaction with this article only concerning the main image: it was nominated for deletion in early June; I argued the case for the image in late June, and implemented a suitable copyright notice on 21 July. Unfortunately, an admin did not close the discussion until 28 August, after this GA/R. Although the image issue was raised in the review, it is an aside. The image has now been kept.
The issue here for me is that a "bold delist" was replaced by a "snowball GA/R". I believe instead it should have been replaced either by a regular delist with notification, or by a slow GA/R, with time to assimilate expert input (again notification would have helped).
The article has a good list of primary and secondary sources. They are not thoroughly cited, but some sections of the article are in summary style, and other sections would only need a general cite per WP:SCG. Inconsistent formatting of references is also something that is easy to fix, hence not a reason to snowball the discussion. It appears that WikiProject Mathematics was not notified. Additionally, this article is relatively quiet (it doesn't really have any active "custodians") and so WPM seems to be unaware of this delist.
Fortunately, this means that there has been no flak, and I don't wish to create any. Indeed, none of my remarks are intended as criticism of anyone, and I think it is best to let all this pass withough further comment. I only raise this case to heighten awareness of the issues that surround articles requiring expert comment, in the hope that this information will help to avoid blow-ups in the future. Geometry guy 23:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a proposal that it be a standard that WikiProjects be notified. It was rejected. Some editors do notify the projects, it was my intention to do it myself, but I've not been very active in GA/R as of late, and I don't think I've done it even once. However, the math project does know (as seen here). They've just handled it well. LaraLove 03:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Excuse the cut in.) They have indeed, but I think I've only seen one of those two editors at WT:WPM, and only once. Geometry guy 14:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It makes perfect sense to inform the projects, as one of the purpose of GA/R is to prompt work on articles thta might be saved with a bit of effort.--Peter cohen 11:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially for technical articles. Geometry guy 14:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the GA/R proceeded too quickly for some involved editors to seriously give input or have time to improve the article, I can't think of any great reason why another GA/R couldn't be started. Homestarmy 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Hilbert 

message: ==== Good Article Review ====
==== Good Article Discussions ==== 
==== Good Article Disputes ====
Homestarmy 14:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename proposals 

message: Homestarmy 14:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Disputes 

message: # LaraLove♥ 17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Reassessment 

message: I just nominated an article for GA Review and a few things were left uncertain. Do I notify the user that passed a Good Article that their article is being reviewed (especially, in my case, where the article was reviewed an hour prior to my contention)? In addition,  is there something specific I say on the article talk page other than that the article is being reviewed? Perhaps a GAR template for articles under review would ease things. Just some ideas. -- Noetic Sage 06:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All that you're supposed to do is notify the talk page, notifying people anywhere else is optional. It doesn't technically matter how you notify the talk page as long as its clear there's a GA/R going on, but I think its more helpful to mention what criteria a person thinks the article fails first. Homestarmy 15:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearer directions 

message: Honestly, why is there a requirement to litter "fact" tags in articles before we can consider them below GA standard?  There is no requirement that "fact" tags be added before we fail an article, so why do we have this extra requirement before we bring them up for further discussion?  The use of inline citations should be clear from the WIAGA standards, as well as NUMEROUS other places at wikipedia... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We shouldn't have to fact tag bomb an article to validate an argument for delistment. The criteria is in place for a reason, and is quite clear, in my opinion. It's not our job as reviewers to point out every instance a citation is needed. Giving a few examples is the most that should be recommended. LaraLove 04:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree. Let's be fair to editors. As I said before, how would you like it if your Significant other said "Shape up or I'm leaving you" but didn't reply when youasked for details about what needs to be shaped up. It is a fairness issue. 'Nuff said. --Ling.Nut 04:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we're not really trying to marry anybody here, just determine article quality. Responsibility for that lies with the editor, not the reviewer. Wrad 05:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Where does it stop, though? Articles aren't put up here unless they really have problems. If it's a big problem, we speak in general terms. If it's a small one, we point out specifics and wait for improvement. You are the one who made the love relationship connection, not me. You explain it. There is no connection. You're right, marriage is irrelevant. It's nothing like a DTR. There is criteria. If the article doesn't meet the criteria, it isn't a GA. Asking for specific fact tags is a little much. Asking for information on what sections need tags is a little more reasonable. I think this is getting blown out of proportion. Just relax and let the process work itself out. If you really care about they article, I'm sure someone will come along who can help you know how to keep it at GA. Wrad 05:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, relax? I'm not concerned about one article, but a process. I'm not talking about love (again), but criticism. Blown out of proportion? Entering a  discussion is blowing something out of proportion? A little much? Asking people who come along voting to delist an article to provide actionable items is a little much? I see nothing in your comments that makes sense, sorry. --Ling.Nut 06:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I just think it's weird to have this discussion going on in two places and wonder why it even started. Wrad 06:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the discussion in the other place has stopped & moved here. If you wonder why it has started, you are simply not paying attention :-) --Ling.Nut 06:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm pretty sure I know why it started, I just think it could have been handled on the main page easily enough. Now it's just getting silly. Wrad 06:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, I'm not saying you're silly, I just don't like how it's boiled down to a tit for tat between us two, that's silly. Wrad 15:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed a trend that when a reviewer states an article needs additional citation, someone swoops in demanding fact tags. As I've stated countless times before, reviewers are not required to edit the articles they review. The criteria (along with WP:V and WP:CITE) are pretty clear, in my opinion, regarding what should be sourced. Giving examples is the most that should be expected from reviewers. LaraLove 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty radical! Would it really change anything? Articles would still have to follow policy, and thus have no unverifiable facts... Wrad 21:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't see what that would change. We already state the policy. That doesn't seem to affect anyone. We just get "You're being too much like FA! RAWRR!" Removing it from the criteria would just cause more issues. Perhaps rather than link the policy to the word verifiable, we should explicitly state that the article must be referenced in compliance with WP:V, which is policy. LaraLove 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidance on the fact tag issue 

message: I have a radical suggestion. Citation, and especially inline citation, is one of the most contentious issues at GA and GAR. In my experience, it has caused and causes more trouble than all of the other criteria put together, both in the review process, and on talk pages like this. So, here is my suggestion: scrap it as a GA requirement. After all, verifiability is a policy, not a style guideline. All articles are supposed to meet it, not just good articles. So why not concentrate on the issues that distinguish good articles from the rest? Geometry guy 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty radical! Would it really change anything? Articles would still have to follow policy, and thus have no unverifiable facts... Wrad 21:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't see what that would change. We already state the policy. That doesn't seem to affect anyone. We just get "You're being too much like FA! RAWRR!" Removing it from the criteria would just cause more issues. Perhaps rather than link the policy to the word verifiable, we should explicitly state that the article must be referenced in compliance with WP:V, which is policy. LaraLove 06:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radical idea

message: I thought everyone here should know that I proposed to rename Featured article review to Featured article reassessment to stay consistent with the renaming of this article. Please give your thoughts here. -- Noetic Sage 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmm. Hope you have a thick skin. --Ling.Nut 01:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I predict something unpleasant is going to happen.... Homestarmy 02:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My magic 8 ball says... Outcome not pretty, wear a cup. I wouldn't touch that discussion with a 50 foot pole. LaraLove 06:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming Featured article review 

message: What if we had one person who was in charge of the GAR, like Raul at FAR and FAC? This could conceivably add some sense to the chaos. This person would decide what the consensus was. Obviously this person would need to be good in the midst of controversy, and have a lot of experience with GA. They would also need to be around consistently. We may even consider having two such persons. Wrad 22:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an incredibly good idea. After Jaron reminded me about the backlog, I came around to comment on the oldest, but found I had already done so and there was no more debate going on. But I had no idea how to close a reassessment, or even if that was kosher. Having a reassessment director who can arbitrate things would be a big help, not only in streamlining, but also in assuring fair treatment. VanTucky Talk 22:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Multiple people already know how to and do archive reviews, and i've only seen like one or two instances of serious controversy over someone's archive decision. Like I said above, the problem with much of this chaos is that so many GA/R's last for so long as of late, while some of them should of been archived sooner, some of them technically should still continue since there are recent reccomendations. I don't think having a director would change that very much, GA/R's wouldn't end much sooner. Homestarmy 22:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Who are these people? Who do I talk to if I have a question about closing a GAR? Wrad 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're correct in a sense Home, but I still don't see how having a director would hurt things. It wouldn't even necessarily have to mean they hold exclusive power to close, only that they are there solely to monitor the flow of reassessments, ideally filling the closing position so the ball doesn't get dropped. I don't think anyone could argue that the closing system is efficient at present. VanTucky Talk 22:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an extremely bad idea. The whole point of the GA process is that it is lightweight. Any editor can list, any editor can delist, any editor can archive a GAR discussion. Anything else is just bureaucracy. How are you going to cope with 20K Good articles with any other system? Geometry guy 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is already happening naturally, that's fine. I just want to know who it is and how they're doing it so we can go from there. Wrad 22:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, like I said above Geometrey, having a director does not by definition preclude the ability of anyone to delist and archive. It only means there will be someone whose job it is to direct things to make sure it actually happens. VanTucky Talk 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if the rules were altered in a way that gets rid of the current backlog, we would find there wouldn't be a need for a director. Although the current GA/R rules have gone through many modifications over the months, most of the biggest modifications have to do with modifying what's already there, not making something that's new. And with so many GA/R's having problems with time warps in discussions, I think there needs to be something that solves the time warp, and a director wouldn't be able to solve that under the current rules. (A director still wouldn't be able to end discussions that have gone on over a month if there is still a slow but steady stream of commentary) Homestarmy 00:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a need for director either. I see a need for getting rid of this "wait a week after the last voice" rule - some cases are pretty clear-cut, and I could see myself adding yet another, say, "delist", which would normally be intended to express my support for some arguments raised, but here I feel compelled not to do it, as it would push the 7-day grace period even further (and I have no guarantee some well-meaning user wouldn't post immediately after my decision not to). And example is the Denial of Soviet Occupation, where there isn't much to be discussed left, and it still awaits its closure... PrinceGloria 06:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose, whole-heartedly any calls for any more "directors" on Wikipedia. There isn't much that's more anti-wiki than throwing around titles all over the place. It just makes the head of the director grow to enormous proportions. I really don't think the situation at FA with its director is something this project should be striving to emulate, just my take. IvoShandor 07:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would support having a director only if the director were moi, and I get lotsa cool stuff and free entrance into fine restaurants along with the title, and people flock to see me everywhere. Under any other circumstances, I oppose. I leave you 48 hours to consider my terms. --Ling.Nut 01:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ling for dictatordirector of GAR! Not sure about the cool stuff, but I guess you might get your own special table at Golden Corral :) Geometry guy 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally. I support Ling.Nut as director, and I'll bestow upon him a reserved table in my section (50% gratuity required per meal, including all guests). However, I must be made the Queen of GA. That's a prerequisite to me supporting the director position. Can we make that happen? Lara❤Love 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  I support this motion, and have a panel of people as those that can close the GAN and GAR. Anyone from the panel can close these nominations. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is effectively an informal panel already, as only the more experienced reviewers tend to want to close discussions anyway. It is a responsibility and a chore, with no associated glory. Geometry guy 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much true. Rarely does anyone not experienced archive any discussion, and if someone does it wrong, someone else just reverts it. Lara❤Love 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: Rubbish new name, so thanks everyone for wasting people's time. Certainly a bad move. LuciferMorgan 19:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get over it. Lara❤Love 20:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name 

message: Why a week instead of three days? And when was it changed anyway? What was wrong with three days? What was wrong with around 80 percent? If this happened the week I was in Michigan, i'd sure like to see a link to this discussion, but as far as I can tell, this was changed with basically no real point. The entire purpose of being able to archive a GA/R speedily is so that it will be, you know, speedy, especially for blatantly obvious cases. A blatantly obvious case will not require an entire week to figure out. Homestarmy 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with comments made by PrinceGloria and others that we shouldn't give precise figures in terms of numbers of days or percentages, but rely on the discretion of the archivist. The more clear cut the reviews, the faster the archiving can be. I'd be happy to shorten the archiving guidelines along these lines. Geometry guy 18:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But if its left vauge like that, it only takes one archivist gone awry to create a mess by archiving disputes like a day after their filed, long before editors who have a useful opinion can see it. Homestarmy 19:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not aware of this ever happening. There is no need to invent solutions without a problem. In my view, the most important line in the current archiving guidelines is "Closing a discussion requires taking responsibility, determining what the consensus of the reviewers is, and taking action where necessary." GAR archivists all seem to take this responsibility quite seriously. Geometry guy 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is blatantly obvious to one reviewer will not always be blatantly obvious to another, or more importantly, blatantly obvious to likely contributors to GA/R's. That's why I think there needs to be some kind of limit, just not a week long one. Unlike the majority of proposed regulations to GA that were searching for an extremely unlikely problem to solve, the failure of human subjectivity to please everyone is not so unlikely. Plus, what you propose hasn't even been implemented, so of course there aren't problems yet.  Homestarmy 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. In my view, no GAR should be archived sooner than 7 days after it starts because the process should include reviewers who only check the page once a week. However, what really should be changed is the "do not archive until there have been 7 days since the last comment". This should depend on the consensus. If there is no dissent, archiving can happen the next day. If there is a minority of dissent, then it is best to wait a couple of days before archiving. If the discussion is highly contested, then a week might really be needed. This is what I mean by "The more clear cut the reviews, the faster the archiving can be." Do you agree with this principle? Geometry guy 19:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds fair, and might help with the higher activity on GA/R often resulting in reviews lasting too long. But then, what happens with reviews where there is not nearly a unanimous consensus, but there is clearly a majority for a certain option? Such a review could last forever if people continue discussing it, since it couldn't be closed as just no consensus if its around 75 percent to do something. That sort of thing is why I think there needs to be a set-in-stone hard cap on the length of time for GA/R's, because most of the time, there's no point in waiting around for more changes or more opinions after a certain long period of time. Homestarmy 20:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I was thinking 4 weeks when I proposed it in a section above, but you didn't seem to like it since it would of required adding another rule. Homestarmy 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not dogmatic. I think a combination of making the guidelines more flexible and adding a time limit might work quite well. Although it involves adding a rule, other rules would be shortened. Geometry guy 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, if there's no disagreement about these ideas in principle, it seems to me we only need to work out what the exact numbers should be. Homestarmy 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said in previous discussions, I am against enumerating everything, but agree that a maximum time limit for GARs might be helpful. So there is only one number to fix from my point of view. I suggested 5 weeks: just over a month and easy to count. Does that suit? Geometry guy 20:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought a month was 6 weeks long, but even though I think 5 is kind of high, I guess its fair to start with to see how it goes. Homestarmy 20:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: February is 4 weeks (28 days), other months are four and a half (30-31 days). But yes, lets see how 5 weeks works in practise. Geometry guy 20:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So yea, about that new speedy archive criterion... 

message: A number of articles just appeared in CAT:GA without a listing on WP:GA. Doesn't look like these were indepedently reviewed. Gimmetrow 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Phase4's recent contribs, Special:Contributions/Phase4. He's been listing articles unilaterally. T Rex | talk 02:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, I'm off to ask him to stop doing this. Should we put these articles on GA hold or just bold delist? Many articles have problems that can't be fixed quickly. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Delisted them all. Lara❤Love 03:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your conclusion is spot on - Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 has recently been identified as having serious COI issues.  21:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A number of articles just appeared in CAT:GA 

message: What happened to the tag for GAR articles that went on the talk page? I don't find it in the instructions. Sumoeagle179 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if there ever was a template, thought it sounds like a familiar template...usage would be very helpful for automating the updating of ArticleHistory events. Homestarmy 20:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was something that said something like "It's GA, but a user has expressed a concern..." as I recall.  — Rlevse • Talk •  18:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you mention it, that sounds like a great idea.  If that template exists let's start using it, and if not let's make it happen! Drewcifer 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAR tag 

message: I believe I am one of the most productive WP:GA authors.  At last count I had 38 current GA credits plus two that have been promoted to WP:FA.  For some time, I have constantly had WP:GACs in the queue for review.  In the month of October at one time I had 9 GACs, as shown here, in the in the queue.  In October, I had at least 7 GA promotions: including Rush Street (Chicago), Ricky Powers, Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood), Chicago Marathon, Harold Washington Cultural Center, Haystacks (Monet), Prairie Avenue, and Rainbow/PUSH.
Last month I posted Gilbert Perreault at WP:GAR (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31#Gilbert_Perreault) because I felt it was being destroyed by another editor who was removing citations.  The GAR was headed to a consensus to keep the article with the citations replaced.  Then, User:Geometry guy closed the discussion as inappropriate for GAR and suggested I take it to WP:RFC.
You may recall that I had first taken the article to the talk pages of both WP:HOCKEY and WP:WPBIO without reply and then requested help at WP:PR after much back and forth editing and arguing.  
Much to my surprise the RFC is headed toward a consensus to allow the removal of my citations and essentially authorizing people to remove citations at will if they are in the mood as has been pointed out in the debate.  However, it is my opinion that I am being baited in the debate especially by User:Djasso who is making it appear that I am doing some unscrupulous.  My most serious concern is that the way the debate is going, it seems to authorize citation removal from WP:GA beyond what I believe is appropriate and I feel I have a good sense of what is appropriate for a good article.  Furthermore, the way debate is going it appears I will be handcuffed to sit by.  I am very fearful that the persons I am debating with intend to tear the citations out of the GAs I have contributed and sort of need some backup so it does not happen.  I had been thinking my work at finding citations was valued, but I am not so sure.
I am hoping that others here are concerned about protecting good articles will help reverse the debate back in line with the direction it was headed while at GAR. Please see Talk:Gilbert_Perreault#RFC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  08:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA citation debate 

message: Should we create a template in the article's talk page to let people know that particular article was sent to GAR? This would be similiar to the ones like "GAN" and "on hold" OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too..many...templates... already... Ling.Nut (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAR template?