Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 9

message: OK to tag Wikipedia:Good articles/redesign for deletion? Any other sandboxes out there? --Ling.Nut 14:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK to tag for deletion? 

message: Previous Discussion may be found here at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 9
Shouldn't GAs get the green circle plus image in the upper right corner like FA articles get stars.  TonyTheTiger 02:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I ask because I want to tag my first GA (Campbell's Soup Cans). TonyTheTiger 02:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the topic of a very old debate about the GA symbol, together with the overall metadata argument. It was deleted, the FA one nearly so as well, but it was quite some time ago. There's a recent topic about it on one of these talk pages or maybe in the recent archive here, it should have a link to the debate. I think if you really wanted to pursue using the GA stamp, you'd need to submit a request for undeletion so people don't jump all over you. Homestarmy 02:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article symbol ctd. 

message: The Good Article collaboration appears to be in trouble, as there's barely anyone really editing much :/. I figured that since its linked from the main page here, maybe I could convince someone to help out for an article or two? Homestarmy 21:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also if anyone else happens to read this but can't edit the current article please leave a nomination on the collaboration page which can be found at WP:GACo. Tarret 12:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Err, not to be a bother, but... 

message: I've just given Accounting period a pass.  It's a page that discusses business taxation law, but I'm really unsure where to put it.  It could either go under 'economics and business' or 'law'.  Probably the former would be more appropriate, but none of the subcategories there are appropriate.  Any suggestions? JulesH 19:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I've created a new subcategory 'business management' under 'economics and business'.  Please change this/move it elsewhere if you feel this categorisation is inappropriate. JulesH 19:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't know where to put this... 

message: Is there really any reason to have a whole category for just two articles? Victoria Cross can go under 'War and military' and Hero of the Russian Federation can go under, I dunno, 'Culture and society'?--SeizureDog 07:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While these two awards could be categorised like this, there are lots of other awards that couldn't, because they can be granted for a wider range of activities.  Whilst it's not currently GA standard, Order of Merit would require this section if it were to be improved enough. JulesH 09:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Awards and decorations' section 

message: User:Cedars, before he left, ran this neat little GA script in perl that kept the GA page formatted correctly and updated properly, and I was just wondering if anyone knew how to run it. It was quite useful for cleaning up the list of weird things :/. And if anyone knows how to program in perl that'd be nice, I can only do a little bit of Java heh, and it seems Ceders had to update it often....Homestarmy 14:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not try asking User:Beland, the creator of the User:Pearle bot might be able to at least help us figure out how to use the script and possibly update it if necessary. 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cedar's script 

message: Allegedly American Revolution was promoted.  I put the delistedGA tag on the talk page, but I can't find the article in the GA index.  If anyone can find it, please remove it. —ExplorerCDT 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest way was normally when User:Cedars would run his gaauto script that took care of the page automatically, but then he left, i've asked someone about how to run it though and I think I know some people in real life who might be able to tell us how it works heh. However, the person who passed it may of just forgotten to list it, since his timestamp is from today, it should be in the recent GA page history. Homestarmy 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it and removed it. Homestarmy 20:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thank you. —ExplorerCDT 20:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Revolution delisted as GA 

message: The "recently added good articles" bit at the top needs instructions.  I would be bold and just add them but I want to get a sense if anyone disagrees with my assessment of what they should be: add the newest at the top of the list, and when you add one, delete the last one.  Make sense? --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The botscript used to keep track of that, so it was alphabetical, but with it gone currently, this is a much better system. --PresN 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I'll just go ahead and do it, if anyone disagrees they can always change it!--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructions for editing page 

message: I've noticed lately that articles are gaining GA status even though they have a "Articles with unsourced statements" category at the time of GA listing. This doesn't appear to satisfy (2a) of "What is a good article?" Should this be addressed? — RJH (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the problem is, even a single cite tag causes an article to appear in that category. So an increadibly enormous article with hundreds of references could still be in the category. Homestarmy 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unclear as to why that is a problem. To me the tag is usually a dispute about the factual accuracy of an article; a way of saying "prove it". So how can it be said to be "good" if it does not meet the criteria? — RJH (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Could this be managed by means of a bot that checks candidates for dispute categories? — RJH (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a problem because an ordinarily well-referenced article will be in an unsourced article category when in reality the vast majority of the article might be sourced, but some tiny little obscure fact might not be sourced. Homestarmy 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I care for a characterization of some of these issues as citing a "tiny little obscure fact". These are listed as vital articles and are high on the core articles list. Unsourced falsehoods only diminish the quality of the article and make the remainder questionable. The Supernova article, for example, had a number of unsourced facts (when it went GA) that required a fair amount of work for me to get them cited. The Jupiter article had four this morning when it went GA. (I just added one that took several hours of searching to track down, but I've had to add in several more.) — RJH (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something has a Citation Needed tag doesn't make it false, that simply means it has not been verified with a reliable source in someone's opinion. (Well, that's how its supposed to work anyway I think). A number of unsourced facts is quite different than one citation needed tag, whether an article has one citation needed tag or fifty, they go in the same Articles with unsourced Statements category. Homestarmy 23:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously. However I would still hope that one of the checks made for GA acceptance is to always look at the categories for fixes that needs to be addressed. In the cases I was talking about these were valid citation-needed tags. If an article is rejected for such an issue then it can always be rectified and nominated again. — RJH (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd hope that people aren't promoting articles with fact tags.  At the same time, though, an FA I wrote was on the main page, and an editor added a fact tag to it at some point during the day, so we fixed it.  If an article is listed as good, but has a fact tag, think about fixing it as opposed to wondering if something needs to be addressed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "GA" articles with unsourced statements 

message: One way to as it were completely revise the good article criteria would be a very extreme one, which if done right would work. That would be to clearly define another ranking grade, maybe "A', and then, after getting enough people to agree to these new criteria, start the process to delete the Good article pages completely. Like I said, an extreme option, but it recently worked regarding Esperanza.  Badbilltucker 20:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extreme option

message: I'm starting a GA Clean Sweep and Delisting campaign will commence its work at about 19:00 tonight, EST. All interested in cleaning out articles not worthy of GA-status, feel free to join in. —ExplorerCDT 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, the problem is, the way the rules are written is that you're not supposed to immedietly delist any articles, you have to give them time for editors to supposedly fix the problems. I think anything less than a few hours wouldn't really be in the spirit of that rule, but if somebody set up a poll on it I wouldn't mind. We should be able to look over the list whenever we want and delist obvious fails immedietly.... Homestarmy 20:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I intend to be objective.  If it doesn't meet the criteria, it should be outed immediately.  Obvious cases.  If it's moderately compliant, I'll put it up for review and give it a week or two for repairs before delisting. For oversight, I'll be putting a list here of what is delisted and what is put up for review. —ExplorerCDT 21:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support this; I think the threshhold for GA status is pretty clear when you come across it.  Obvious articles that do not meet the minimum GA status should be delisted--as incorrectly listed. ?James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 21:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should point out that there is a sweep list which can be used to coordinate sweeping. It is however outdated so if a category is missing feel free to add it to the list. Tarret 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many of the articles were actually around when the standards wern't as high, they have changed several times. We did get many of them on our previous sweeps though, but now that there's more articles on the list, there's probably many left to find now. But I still think somebody might get kind of angry if people start immedietly delisting things without most people discussing it first, preferably, getting rid of the wait rule for immediete delisting would be nice. Homestarmy 21:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice:

message: Is their anywhere (or any GA user judge) I can go to and ask their opinion before nominating a page? Chaldean 03:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, many people who review articles would probably not mind taking a look at an article quickly to tell you its chances if you ask them personally. Homestarmy 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Better yet, WP:PR -- Selmo (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried WP:PR and it turned out useless. Any users whilling to take a peek? The article is Munir Bashir Chaldean 03:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think at present it would pass, the lead needs to be expanded, and I can't tell whether the "Literature" section is supposed to count as literature referencing Bashir or not, and even if it was, the referencing overall seems a bit too low for most GA reviewers I know to pass it. To expand the lead, I recommend beefing up the first part with more info from the reception and impact section, and beefing up the second with stuff from the style sections. References I can't help with much, but the writing in those style sections is pretty high-level, I don't think many readers would really have much idea what most of it even means heh. I'm not saying re-write all those articles into this article concerning the more technical terms, but a little bit more explanation can't hurt I say. Finally, sentences like "For better understanding it has to be said, that the lute plays a similar role in Arabian music as the piano does in European music: It is the instrument used to impart the most important theoretical aspects in music." looks suspicious, "it has to be said" according to which notable sources, "most important theoretical aspects" according to which experts in the field of music, that sort of thing. Homestarmy 04:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An opinion before nominating a page? 

message: Is it appropriate for someone to fail a GA candidate based in part on his personal POV? I ask because Level of support for evolution was recently failed by User:Jorfer in part because of NPOV concerns, and when he elaborated on this later he explained that the article contradicts his own POV in that "a Creationist, such as myself, would argue the support exists because of the dogmatic preaching of it in public schools and most universities combined with the rote learning style of today's public school system and not because it is the best explanation" and "it is NPOV that an attempt to discredit evolutionists be included".
He then went on to repeat a host of canards about evolution, as though this refuted the scientific evidence (and as though any of this was relevant to an article about the popular support, not evidence, for evolution): "I just find it ironic that evolutionists, who believe that human nature was formed by millions of years of evolution (it is millions, correct), can so quickly dismiss human's natural inclination to believe in a Creator. The interesting is that people exist today that are not bent on survival of the fittest but are dedicate to help the meek, the unloved, the poor, the hungry. How could this genetic code survive until today in a world where only the strongest surive." And for good measure, he rebuked the separation of church and state: "The Supreme Court and lower courts have effectively outlawed Christianity in public schools. Look it up."
He also admitted that he had a grand total of 0 references to back up his personal POV that poor education, rather than merit or evidence, was behind evolution's level of scientific support: "I know I am not the only person that feels that the support is because of John Dewey's advocation and not Charles Darwin's theory so I will find sources but the tag should stay up anyways."
I am not so much concerned with JEF/Jorfer's misinformed comments as I am with the idea that they would considered by Wikipedia to be acceptable grounds for rejecting a Good Article candidate. Although I personally agree with failing the article in question (hence I don't see a need to review the vote; as I see it, JEF made the right call for the wrong reasons), on the grounds that it doesn't meet all the WP:GA? criteria, I am greatly concerned about the apparent potential for abuse in this system if it is OK to reject a GA in part for personal POV reasons. Is this really appropriate? Are there no consequences for this sort of misconduct? -Silence 01:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had this happen before over Creation-Evolution controversy I think, this sort of thing happens occasionally, but generally speaking, a review normally clears things up more or less for the better to most people. If he made the right call though but some of his reasons wern't correct, i'm not sure there's that major of a problem here, whenever things ended up on review generally it was the wrong call regardless of the reasons :/. If a GA was rejected not for the criteria at all but something unrelated, I dought it would go through a GA/R without being relisted, if not speedily so. Homestarmy 17:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about GA-reviewer bias 

message: If an article has been nominated once as a GA, failed, then renominated, and successful, do we leave the failed tag on its talk page, or remove it when we add the GA tag? SP-KP 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no rule, but I think it makes more sense to just remove the failed tag and have one tag on the page at a time in this case. The date thing I think is just for reference purposes for reviewers, but nothing really depends on it per se. Homestarmy 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In general, the failed tag(s) is/are removed whenever it passes, for both GA and FA. --PresN 18:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You might want to check out . --- RockMFR 16:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I found the GA list of articles and the FA list of articles but I cannot find the A-class list which is supposed to be in the middle. Can someone point out the list and the candidates page, please? 650l2520 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "A" rank was invented I think for the Wikipedia CD's purposes, the only list would be the category of A-ranked articles, at Category:A-Class articles. Homestarmy 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no A-class candidates page, but try and find a project related to the article and take it there for peer review. WP:MH runs an A class assessment page, but you could also message some GA reviewers on the page listing and ask for their advice. RHB Talk - Edits 09:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant category for all A class articles is .  Each WikiProject has a separate grading and approval system for A class, and many WikiProjects forgo A class and use only GA and FA processes.  Check the archives of WP:1.0 for more details. Slambo (Speak) 12:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right - A-Class isn't an "award" given by the community, more an internal assessment by a WikiProject. Walkerma 15:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-class list 

message: All "beliefs" do not belong under "religion and beliefs"; only religious (including spiritual, mystical, supernatural, etc.) beliefs belong there. Philosophical, political, scientific, etc. beliefs do not belong in such a section. Therefore "Religion and beliefs" should clearly be simplified to "Religion", or "Beliefs" should be replaced by more descriptive, specific, substantive terms. This same change was instituted in WP:FA some time ago, but somehow this page hasn't kept up with the times. -Silence 11:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was truly unacceptable, why does it seem Raul accepted it in the FA discussion about it? Homestarmy 20:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't, once he understood the issues involved. As a direct result of the discussion, he switched it, which is why "Religions and beliefs" is no longer an FA section on Wikipedia:Featured articles. If it was remotely acceptable, this change would never have occurred, because clearly the weight of tradition is a powerful one for as widely-viewed a project as WP:FA. -Silence 03:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the reason you're confused is because Raul didn't make any more comments once he accepted my reasoning; he just made the change. Hence if you don't read the whole thread it looks like Raul is objecting to the idea, but he changed his mind between my second-to-last and last comments there. "Religion and beliefs" was an error, and a simply one; once it was brought to editors' attention, it was fixed by removing the "beliefs" part (and subsequently replacing it with "and mysticism", then ", mythology, and mysticism"). The same sequence of events transpired when the same error was brought up a second time at WP:0.5. There is thus no basis for perpetuating the error here, at WP:GA. -Silence 03:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable section title: "Religion and beliefs" 

message: If anyone reads this can you please nominate an article, vote for an article or edit the current Good article collaboration? We could use a little help keeping it going as it is going through slow times recently? Tarret 02:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Collaboration 

message: Hello, the article Old St Paul's Cathedral, which I nominated was passed today, but the reviewer didn't quite finish the job, as it has not appeared on the list of architecture-related GAs and newly added GAs. I was wondering if another editor would be willing to add it to these lists, please, as it might be seen as being a bit odd if I do it. Thanks in advance. Bob talk 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Sorry to Nehrams2020, given all the hard work, but imho the count will not be that high. The script that cedars ran allowed duplicates over different areas to allow for the fact that certain articles could and most likely should be classified by different areas. This means that an absolute count at the minute will be wrong. The only answer is to remove the duplicates and re-count or we get some help to run the script again. My preference is the script but I see Homestarmy has tried really hard to get it working without much success or help. Perl coders; help! SeanMack 13:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not surprised the count is off, the script hasn't been run in weeks. I have a Calculus teacher who knows Perl and apparently cURL too, but i've never had time to ask him about it :(. (I tried yesterday, but he was busy playing the World of Warcraft trading card game during gaming club heh.) I've gotten all the way to getting cURL and Libcurl to show up under the Perl libraries, (It seems all the main instructions are for UNIX compatible machines, but I finally found some program that makes it work in Windows) but the cURL commands still won't run in Cedar's script, just says they aren't recognized... Homestarmy 13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Homestarmy, I really do give you plaudits for giving this a go, but as a code-monkey myself, MS stuff, not perl, I know that without more documentation or help its just gonna be pain for you. My best advice would be to try mailing cedars and see if you can get some help, even though he has gone he might help with this one thing. Funny about the WOW though, made me smile as this popped into my head :-)  SeanMack 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, Cedar's e-mail apparently wasn't registered, I can't e-mail him :(. I know his script technically works, it's just two cURL commands aren't registering on my computer, (Binding cURL to Perl wasn't fun, but I think I finally got it, it turns out almost all the cool programming stuff isn't done on Windows heh) so the actual URL of the GA page isn't cURL'ed into the text document his script creates to go over, and some other system command I can't understand doesn't work either, but I think it has to do with cURL too. Homestarmy 14:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Might be worth a post on his talk page? I've seen people leave but still keep an eye out. Best of luck again though. I'll ask in work just in case but the chances are slim - MS all the way... SeanMack 14:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I got some more help with the script, it seems it was written using Linux system commands, so I guess Cedar's used Linux.....I changed it to "copy" in one place, and I changed the cURL command to point to a cURL file, but the thing still says it fails to download the page -____-. Homestarmy 22:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about saving the page in your pc and pointing the code to the file, is that possible? SeanMack 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell, its a bit hard to figure out in the script which parts are dependent on the download or not. The first codeblock after the download just seems to have an if statement to check if the download was a success, but near the end I can't tell if what its doing relates to uploading or not and what should stay if it doesn't upload.... Homestarmy 02:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA count 

message: Hi, I passed the article Julia Lennon, but I'm having a bit of trouble finding a category for it to go under on tha GA page. I was wondering if another editor could add it to the appropriate position in the list. Thanks. ErleGrey 15:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julia Lennon 

message: Why are peer reviews archived but Good article reviews are not? (Gnevin 01:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are, look on the WP:GA/R page in the archive box. Or do you mean the actual candidacy reviews? Those are just supposed to be on the article talk pages, if you saw a review happen without an actual review appear, that's not supposed to happen. Homestarmy 19:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I mean i think GA reviews should be put of a sub page like  this  of the article's talk page instead as in done in Peer review .Instead  of just on the  main talk page where they get archived and lost (Gnevin 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm, a problem is, review format here isn't standardized like Peer reviews, while there is a nifty checklist template, not everyone uses it and its not mandatory. Homestarmy 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: There is a discussion going on at the village pump regarding a possible merge of GA into A-Class assessment. Input from those involved in the GA process would be welcomed. Thanks. Trebor 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the notification. Homestarmy 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of GA and A-class ratings 

message: This was GAed a little while ago but it's not yet up on the project page. I'm not sure what category to put it in though; it seems like a new subcategory to Literature should be made, like "Events within literature" or something. --Fbv65edel / ?t / ?c || 22:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[First Battle of Beruna]] 

message: I would like to propose that WP1.0 Bot be used to track GAs.  I think this would bring benefits both to the GA project and help resolve confusion & ambiguity with the use of GA-Class in the assessment scheme.  The benefits here would principally be (a) the project would have the number of GAs updated nightly and (b) there would be a log tracking all changes - for example if someone bypassess the GA system and just tags their own article with the GA template, or if someone who doesn't like XXXX removes it without formal review (I've seen this, by the way!).  Less tangible benefits would be that (a) all WikiProjects would have all GAs noted in their worklists automatically and (b) we would remove the problems between A/GA/B (see the village pump discussion mentioned above!).  Please read the proposal and leave comments. Thanks, Walkerma 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it wouldn't be as automatic as gaauto was, but once the initial job of fixing the list is done from whatever damage has happened over the past months or so, I suppose the function of showing articles that are properly passed wouldn't be too hard to implement onto the page, and besides, gaauto didn't print out a log, that's a plus. I don't contribute to much of the WP1.0 grading scale stuff, so if you all want to change how your own system's ratings work, I don't think I have any complaint about that heh. Homestarmy 19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using WP1.0 Bot for GAs 

message: Hi guys, I have been leafing through several of the older GAs and found several a bit odd GAs where I would like to hear your feedback first.
#David Beckham: on Oct 9, 2005, a user adds the GA tag without any prior nomination. 
#Graphic novel: on Aug 8, 2006, someone nominates it, and the next day, it is passed with no explanation on the talk page. 
#Fawcett Publications: promotion without nomination. 
#National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications: another promotion without nomination. 
Was it possible back then to pass GAs without any review? I a bit puzzled. I only know the workflow "nominate - review on talk page - fail/list". Thanks for reading. —Onomatopoeia 15:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one is technically legal, there wasn't a candidate page before march or so. The second looks illegal though, but the third seems to of been just barely before the candidates page time. The fourth also appears to be fine in terms of legality of passing for being before march-ish. Homestarmy 19:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback requested 

message: :: list removed
:Is there any way to do this automatically? I corrected the number of GA's by adding up section number a few weeks ago, but rarely do reviewers update the GA total. RHB Talk - Edits 21:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The total could easily be automated, but the scan above showed up 22 delistedGAs still listed, and nearly 50 with  never added to WP:GA. Some of the latter are not legit so those 50 links can't simply be added without checking. WP:GA has 1885 unique article links (as currently noted) but the WP:GA list needs maintaining for that number to be valid.  Gimmetrow 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  RH, Gaauto does this automatically. I don't suppose you have a linux box? I could lead you through how to install Perl, the Romans module, and cURL with it if so, that's what the script seems to need to run. Homestarmy 00:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried gaauto, but the resulting file had far too many mangled characters. Pages still missing are listed above. Gimmetrow 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you install the Romans module, I think it needs that to handle final fantasy names or something like that. Homestarmy 16:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I did. Guess that part didn't work. Gimmetrow 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What exactly was mangled about the output? Sometimes Cedars said it didn't handle non-English symbols above letters correctly... Homestarmy 16:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly. Took quite a while to correct. Gimmetrow 17:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I guess the list really did change a good bit since the script was last ran then... Homestarmy 17:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of the articles listed here were malhandled GA/R stuff, some others might of been supposed to be on GA/R, i'll try to handle some of them. Homestarmy 17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've dealt with every article on this list I think depending on each one's situation besides Wonderbra and Mr. Lady records, as I don't think actually viewing either article to check it could safely be called school-safe. (You'd be surprised how much hubbub my school makes when it actually catches people doing something) Homestarmy 20:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but now there are another dozen articles in the category without links on the WP:GA page. I'll do a few more. Gimmetrow 23:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A list to start with

message: Just a small question: Is there any sort of policy that prevents future events, such as 2008 Summer Olympics from becoming GAs? Because obviously the article will be considerably changed in the next year, so maintaining its GA status would be difficult. -- Scorpion 17:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this would fail criterion 5, being stable. You know that the article will change drastically in the next year and a half, so its rating of GA would just be rescinded anyway. I nominated Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) for a GA recently; it is well-cited on all accounts but it hasn't been released yet, and thus there are no reviews/reaction section. The article in its current stage is flawless, but its current stage is not a wholesome stage. See the difference? --Fbv65edel / ?t / ?c || 17:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There's nothing specific, but in my experience most future event type articles are very unstable in their own right, chances are you can just fail most of that kind of article for stability normally. Homestarmy 17:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future events? 

message: Do we really need an energy section? Many articles that would go there could be easily listed under technology, can't it? Tarret 21:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy section? 

message: I'm very concerned about the requirements for approval or rejecton of a GA candidate. I have no difficulty with the criteria used to judge a GA; my concern lies with the fact that only one editor is required to pass or fail an article. I believe this is a serious flaw in the process. For instance, even speedy delete decisions require two editors, and articles for deletion are typically not decided upon without the input from at least three editors even in extreme cases. While I have no suggestion on how many editors' inputs it should require to determine the success or failure of a GA, I certainly think it ought to be representative of some kind of consensus. I wish to make an issue of this - can someone suggest where else I might take my argument? Thanks, Dennitalk 19:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Crimson-collared Tanager was promoted to GA on 13 July 2006, but I have recently delisted it.  Does this example help here?  Snowman 19:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We used to be able to speedy delist articles whenever we wanted to, but three people decided to change that. (I was a fourth trying to stop it, but alone I had no choice but to go along) We used to quickly get rid of lousy articles that were passed under very specious reasons, yet now all the hassle with waiting before delisting an article seems to not be in use at all. GA/R has quickly become inflated with disputes. However, In my experience, the majority of articles that are passed these days are at least reasonably in compliance with GA criteria... Homestarmy 20:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we currently have a very large backlog and it could be difficult to get three people to review each and every article. A lot of the failed articles are improperly nominated or don't meet a majority of the criteria. Good articles are not an official award like FA so that's why we wouldn't need that many people reviewing it. --Nehrams2020 21:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might be a good idea to have two reviewers, though.  One person can miss things.  And it cuts down somewhat on the unevenness of the process -- since different reviewers have different standards.  Time is a concern, but the greatest problem with the current process is this inconsistency in judging, in my opinion. Shimeru 23:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of having two reviewers. I do not necessarily think it would result in a larger backlog. In my experience I often don't review an article if it is a borderline case (as many nominees seem to be). If I knew that my decision would not be the only thing passing/failing an article (ie too much responsibility) I would be more comfortable reviewing more articles. If this is true for a number of people then having 2 reviewers may reduce the backlog if it encourages people to participate more. - Suicidalhamster 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to be gaining consensus to re-institute speedy delisting on the GA/R talk page, often times, I noticed that often served as a second reviewer who can catch things. Homestarmy 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it should take two editors to pass or fail.  It is too easy to miss things with just one editor, and occasionally you'll get significantly bad GA passes or fails (shoot, for featured article, I've seen it opposed because it isn't notable enough).  Like Suicidalhamster, I would also be more likely to pass and fail articles if it wasn't completely up to me. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just so everyone knows, it seems I didn't actually notice it immedietly, but on March 7th, the rules for delisting were changed to allow for immediete delisting once again. I don't know if that counts as a second review of sorts to anyone, but in my experience, it certainly weeded out terrible GA's in a smallish amount of time when people were looking over the GA list for a good bit. Homestarmy 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The process is already drawn out enough, no point in instituting further rules to further complicate it. Delisting is fine. But if we are going to go on a community consensus of multiple editors then why not just skip GA, delete the whole page and just have FA. I can't take any more rules/regulations/guidelines anywhere on Wikipedia. If I see one more "policy" essay, I am going to puke in my mouth. Way, way too much WP:CREEP going on in general, not too say I don't like the speedy delisting or the Good articles page, It's all good. I am just saying. IvoShandor 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GAs need two reviewers to pass, if you consider the nominator a reviewer. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Ivo, the new speedy delisting rule replaces a more complicated rule which required a "reasonable wait time", which from what I can tell was just ignored and people took it straight to GA/R even for the most obvious of fails. Homestarmy 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I am not against the speedy delisting, I think that is a really good idea. I think it eliminates some of the instruction creep on Wikipedia. We need more thinking like this. : ) IvoShandor 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA promotion 

message: I've just passed William Monahan as a GA, and am having doubts as to where I should list it. Monahan is currently a screenwriter, and has been a novelist, journalist, critic, blah blah blah... :) Should I list under "Cinema", "Actors...celebrities", or "Writers and critics"? I'm leaning towards the last, and would greatly appreciate any input. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 15:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with your gut instinct on this one. Screenwriters are still writers, and if he has a long history in a writing career, that's the right way to go. Vassyana 21:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: What exactly entails stability? A lack of changes for a good while? Does an article that changes, but does so in a consistant fashion with no edit warring but rather simple content building qualify as stable or not? I'm curious to hear other editors thoughts on this. Vassyana 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in my experience, no disputes have arisen since the criteria has existed in its current form, (Which has been quite awhile), and in the meanwhile, it seems like something that replaces large chunks of an article all at once or around the same time period (like, say, over the course of two days) would create a situation which would be defined as instability, at least for me anyway. I think it would be pretty silly if people interpreted it to mean that an article that changes at a sort of mediumish rate was unstable, I mean, articles are supposed to change over time, its a wiki :/. . But when articles change drastically all at once, that runs the risk of new content not being up to GA standards, and technically represents large chunks of article that haven't actually been evaluated at all. Homestarmy 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stability 

message: Instead of sweeping the list and picking out the older GAs one by one, why don't put all of them in a list for a re-review of their status and then there they can be re-reviewed to see is they meet the current GA status. Tarret 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think with the current backlog at WP:GAC this would not be a good idea. If we could get more activity on GA reviews to keep the list reasonable, then it would be appropriate to discuss adding more to the workload. Another potential route would be through the various WikiProjects that handle assessements. Vassyana 15:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, these would be on a seperate list, and they stay listed until they are reviewed. This way we can atleast weed out the old GAs which don't meet the criteria anymore. Tarret 23:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way to sort GAs by the date they were promoted? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: The new bot-generated list (we should hopefully see this in a couple of days or so) will include the date the bot found the GA, which will roughly correlate with the date of promotion.  Unfortunately it won't read this information retroactively, but in time this may be a useful feature of these lists.  They will be sorted alphabetically rather than by date, though.  Walkerma 08:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Create another list, sorted by date, and review the oldest GAs first. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the alphabetical lists are now available at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Good_articles_by_quality. (Thanks, Titoxd!) Walkerma 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old GAs 

message: It covers too many categories, I can't seem to find a good place for it.--SeizureDog 06:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would put it in Other Arts.  DoomsDay349 21:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh, where would [[Unfinished work]] go? 

message: Last month I made this suggestion here, namely, to start using WP 1.0 Bot to list articles for the GA project.  If there is support for this proposal, I'm willing to set up the infrastructure to do this - once this is done, the bot generates its output automatically.  
I originally made the proposal in the context of removing the GA-Class from the WP 1.0 assessment scheme, because it is not a WikiProject assessment grade but an external tag/review.  However, I wanted to set up things in such a way that everyone would benefit, including this project.  Although that broader proposal was generally favoured, there were clearly several people who opposed it, and I didn't want to force it through.  However, I'm proposing we try out using the bot here anyway to help this project.  The benefits, as I see it, are:
*There will be an accurate count (updated every other night) of all talk pages with the GA tag.
*There will be a log (also updated every other night) showing all changes.  Those who police this project can check the log to track delisting, look for vandalism, name changes, etc.  I have personally restored several GA tags lost through incorrect archiving or vandalism.
*There will be a set of lists like this one, listing all the GAs alphabetically, and giving a link to the article version found on the same day the bot found the GA tag (this date is also listed).  This last feature can help in looking at changes since an article was promoted.
*If this is all done, I propose to have the bot modified so as to report the GA tag in all the tables of the 400 or so WikiProjects that use this bot - this is very easy for Oleg to do.  It would appear in the "Version" column just as 0.5 does in lists such as this one.  This column is not the ideal place for such information, but it should be clear enough, and anything else would get complicated. 
I can't see any real drawbacks for this project, other than the fact that for the information to be useful people here need to check it regularly.  Can anyone see anything I'm missing?  Do you want me to go ahead and set things up for the bot? Walkerma 06:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds useful and if it could pick out the ten "Recently listed good articles" it will also help with the "Recently listed good articles" on the page. Tarret 13:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This sounds awesome. I think it would be very useful. Vassyana 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I still support this proposel. :) Homestarmy 13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anything would help. Only a week ago CAT:GA and WP:GA were fully reconciled. Now the total GA count is off by 6, there are another 7 in CAT:GA not listed on WP:GA, and at least a few of the section counts are off. Gimmetrow 13:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, barring a sudden flood of objections, I'll get this set up this weekend. Cheers, Walkerma 01:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything? :/. Homestarmy 15:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a draft of the new template User:Walkerma/Sandbox3.  Please take a look.  I posted a general request for comments/edits to this on the 1.0 page over the weekend, but got no response so far.  I didn't want to risk screwing everything up for the GA project by putting out a template that was broken!  Tonight I will contact directly a few people directly, hopefully that will elicit something.  If there are people here who are good with templates, please edit/comment as well.  It is designed to accept an (optional) category parameter, which matches the categories seen on the GA page; I have found feature that very helpful with  because I could easily locate all the history articles, etc.  Note that the category generation code is in there, but currently "switched off" (a colon in front of the cat link) so that you don't see my sandbox appearing as a GA!  Once the template is working, it will only take a few minutes to get the system set up for the bot, though it will take 2-3 days before it is up & running. Walkerma 06:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh. I was just doing that.  Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, thanks Titoxd!  I was just writing a request on your talk page, you must have known!  Heck, he even set up the categories!  We should watch things at the main index page to make sure the GA project appears there in a day or two (initially redlinked).  Many thanks, Walkerma 07:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the table won't be populated until the sandbox template is rolled out to . I can do that, and then run the update manually. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lo and behold, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Good articles by quality. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking at the log for today, there seems to be a bit of a problem. People have been rolling out that ArticleHistory template as of late, and i've noticed many of the Delists the bot is seeing are actually people replacing the GA template with the ArticleHistory template, could the 1.0 bot be modified to handle the ArticleHistory template showing as GA? (Still a useful bot though, it spotted a vandal whom I reverted....) Homestarmy 21:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You would need to modify ArticleHistory to accept the category instead. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Never mind - I just did that. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is the new "topic" paramter going to be used? Ultimately, the CD templates will probably be incorporated into ArticleHistory. Gimmetrow 02:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Topic is going to be used, in the GA sense, to link to the top-level categories on WP:GA. Ironically, all of the CD templates got condensed into ... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other categories used by GA were already rolled into ArticleHistory. Gimmetrow 02:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did see that. Thanks. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not mandatory for GAs; it is just nice to be able to link to GA#Arts, for example. However, if you do intend to add 1.0 classes in the future, it will need to support it as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding a new parameter to the template is of course trivial - it's more a question of whether I need to add this to the bot, because if it starts running into  does it need to keep the topic info? Gimmetrow 03:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, I don't know; I haven't seen it being used that much. However, if you plan to combine it with the 1.0 template, it will need topic (or "category", as the 1.0 templates call it) information to be stored. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using WP1.0 Bot for GAs 

message: Discussion here. Also see the backlog discussion previous it. IvoShandor 09:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA quick fail discussion 

message: In what started as a discussion on quick-failing at Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates, I realized that what is really needed is a more extensive guide to reviewing Good Articles.  I was WP:BOLD and started a Draft version as a subpage of my userpage.  The draft can currently be found at:  User:Jayron32/Guide to reviewing Good Articles.  Please make any changes as you see fit, and leave any comments you have on the talk page.  I propose a goal of having the draft finalized within 2 weeks from today (by April 13) and moved to the GA project by that date.  Thank you all for your attention to this.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea, but it needs to mention and give details of what to look for when reviewing an article for GA status. I think that while WP:WIAGA is a good summary of what a GA needs we still need something that goes into more detail on it. Also , if this does work out can we shorten the title to something like Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles? Tarret 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you have some positive contributions to make.  Go ahead and make any additions/changes to the proposal page you wish to, or make any comments on the talk page you want to.  Don't be scared to be bold just because its in a user namespace.  This is an open proposal, and we seek all the input we can get. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guide to Good Articles: DRAFT PROPOSAL 

message: A bit of a silly question, but I must know: which GA was lucky enough to be number 1337teen? --tjstrf talk 04:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure.  As articles get listed and delisted, the number fluctuates.  The number listed on the WP:GA page is not the total number of articles to ever achieve GA.  For example, if there are 2017 articles on the GA list, that doesn't mean that the last one nominated was number 2017.  Given the rate at which articles are delisted, it it probably something like the 2200th or 2300th article to be a GA.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,337 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?#Proposed reworking of the criteria. Thank you. — Deckiller 06:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking of the criteria 

message: I just added George P. Burdell under historical people, but I'm not at all sure it was the right subsection.  If anyone can figure out a better place to put him, please do.  Thanks.  Mike Christie (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional historical person 

message: I did an overhaul of the geography category, specifically the Places sections.  The prior system, based on location by Hemisphere, was both illogical and inconsistent.
*Illogical in the sense that place very close in terms of location and culture were separated. For example, British Isles locations, where two cities in England appeared in two different lists.  This is a correct organization based on hemispheres (as England lies in both hemispheres) but it seems silly that two English cities should appear in two different categories.
*Inconsistent in the sense that some people had placed places in the wrong category, such as a Portuguese city in the Eastern Hemisphere.  Yes, portugal is in Europe, but it is in the Western Hemisphere part of Europe.  The presence of most european articles in the Easten Hemisphere section may have confused whoever put this here.
To fix this, I reorganized it into continents, so that most places will be near other places that have most in common with.  As a side effect, and a rather telling one, we can more easily see now that MOST GA's out there are relating to places in England, Australia, USA, and Canada.... hmmm...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of Places under Geography category 

message: Is GA class a part of the assessment scale because as I was checking the article talk pages I changed the wikiproject assessment box for the article argon but it was changed back. Would anyone care to answer my question? 74.116.113.241 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, some Wikiprojects claim they don't use GA as a designation anymore, but the GA designation still works in their templates. Homestarmy 21:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA class & wikiprojects 

message: Would the editors here be interested in going through the 2000+ GAs and adding the oldids to the talk page banner, as discussed here? If so, please express interest or add comments below. Thanks. The ultimate aim would be to enable the GA banners to be properly integrated into  (hence the need to find the oldids for when the GAs were promoted). At least that is what I think the proposal over there said. Hopefully this will become clearer very soon! Carcharoth 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. The first one I tried, Architecture of the California missions, I ran into the problem of there being effectively two oldids. One is for when it was initially promoted, back in July 2006. The other is for after the inline citation style was added following a note left on the talk page. I'm now not sure quite which oldid applies. Maybe the GA template needs to be upgraded to include both a promotion oldid, and then any later review oldids? Carcharoth 22:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No keeping up with GA reviews, added, delisted, readded, delisted, readded would be an impossible task.  We should just have the latest GA listing which corresponds to the date it was actually added (last) to WP:GA, or it will really be undoable.  Unless Gimmetrow disagrees with me; he knows best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, ArticleHistory is only likely to be implemented on articles with failed FACs, so it's only those that could (immediately) help the conversion to ArticleHistory by having oldids in the GA templates (if they exist). Second, it's the oldid from the time it was added that is relevant, the "reviewed version". If an article is listed, delisted at GAR and re-listed, there should be three events and three oldids in ArticleHistory. However, the GA template on its own would have oldid for the most recent addition. Gimmetrow 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Reply to Sandy and Gimmetrow - in this case, there was no delisting. Just an old promotion. A threat of a review, and a tidying up of the inline citations. Have a look at what I did at Architecture of the California missions and then at Borobudur. I think I did it right. One problem. The script doesn't seem to be working. When I use it, it just comes up with the link to manually enter a date. Anyway, that means I'm manually adding the oldids. Both the ones I looked at were simple to do. Borobudur had an old peer review template - is anything needed to make those GimmeBot-ready? I don't mind trying to rescue oldids for GAs - will be useful eventually, I hope. Carcharoth 23:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three things:  1) You've got to get the script working correctly first, or it will take you forever.  Not sure what's wrong there, maybe ask Dr pda.  2) Click on the old peer review, click on history, and make sure there's not an archived peer review that needs to be added back - they often get lost (or watch for other events on Dr pda's script, which could include two oldpeerreviews).  3) As Gimmetrow says above, focus first on What Links Here in , finding those that are GA, as they will be converted first.  As you get them ready, put a list somewhere so we can check them and botify them.  Great work !  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I still need to learn a few things first. Specifically, see the comment I left on Gimmetrow's talk page. Not spreading conversations out over multiple pages would be a start! :-) That's enough for tonight anyway. I looked through the 22 articles in the Architecture GA section (would you have time to briefly look at what I did?). This should be interesting, and I've learnt stuff from doing it manually, but as you say, I need to get the script working. At least I've learnt the right format for manually entering dates... I was trying 2006-07-14 and getting nowhere. Then I tried 14 Jul 2006 and it worked! :-) Would be even nicer if it found things automatically. Can you point be to a page where it definitely works, and I can try it there. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding oldids for the GAs 

message: Can an admin fix this please?  Fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS—the correct medical name and diagnosis) was awarded GA a while back.  An editor moved it (and its talk page) to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), and removed all traces of FAS from Wiki.  FASD is *not* a recognized medical condition.  I cut and pasted the relevant parts of the article back to FAS.  WikiProject Medicine is trying to deal with the mess, but I can't just move it all back without admin help.  Can someone figure out how to straighten out the GA portion?  We need to get the GA back to the correct, medical article which was awarded GA.  Or, just remove its GA.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't you just revert the page back to the version right before the page was moved? :/ But i'll leave a note or something telling people not to fail the article if it looks bad now or something, at least for now anyway.... Homestarmy 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, both articles have improved.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it appears like there's a pretty good bit of dispute over this issue. Perhaps a double GA review on both articles at once would be better? I'll also look back to see if the article was even passed properly in the first place. Homestarmy 16:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, reread.  There is no dispute.  NO one disagrees as to the problem; the discussion is over how to fix the talk pages and the faulty moves.  Also, FASD will be reduced to a stub (it is not a recognized medical conditions), so needs no GA review.   It was never GA and never should have been; it was a faulty move. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks like it was passed fairly, I once knew the user who passed it, (His username is really hard to capitalize, User:GoOdCoNtEnT or something) I think he was a reasonably fair reviewer, no idea why he got accused of sockpuppeting abusively or whatever. Homestarmy 16:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Our messages crossed in the mail.  I just fixed it manually since we decided we couldn't move the talk pages.  The only reason we haven't completed the work (remove FASD references from FAS, and reduce FASD to a stub) is that we're waiting for more knowledgeable editors to come on board to help.  If they don't appear within a week, we'll have to reduce FASD to a stub, as it's not based on reliable sources.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, GoodContent was *very* disruptive at FAC.  If you think FAS isn't GA, I don't think anyone will object.  It looks GA to me, but I don't follow GA.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if the issue is a genuine dispute over content of the two articles, than it may be failed on stability grounds.  If it is a case of vandalism/disruption, than I see no reason it could not remain.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to support a temporary exception for the FAS article for stability, if the user who wanted the two articles has come over to supporting the other side now, I think it would be entirely reasonable to wait and see if this article can be restored properly. But as for FASD, it looks like the focus of the article is quite different from the article which was actually reviewed, I think that one should have to be reviewed on its own, assuming it isn't reduced to a stub. Homestarmy 17:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be resolved soon; if MLHarris doesn't surface to help with this work, other WikiProject Medicine editors will do the work.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA at FAS/FASD 

message: This process is so random; will someone please deal with Ronald Reagan, who was passed by a brand new editor and then submitted to FAC within a day.  Smells like socks.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave the article a proper review this time, even ignoring the bogus sock-puppet promotion.  You can find my review at Talk:Ronald Reagan.  The article has serious referencing issues and NPOV issues.  It should have been quickfailed on the numerous  tags in the article anyways, but I did leave notes for improvement.  If the article can be rewritten to provide a more balanced view of the Reagan presidency and if the referencing can be brought up to snuff, than it should be renominated. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ronald Reagan]] 

message: Due to no outright objections in roughly three weeks and all suggestions being answered, the revised criteria have been implemented at Wikipedia:What is a good article?. — Deckiller 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria reworking complete 

message: Exactly how accurate is the given number of GAs? Wouldn't it be better to have a bot find the number of GA templates and have the stat updated automatically? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I think that the bot could also canvas the Talk pages and also update the list of good articles daily (removing those that are no longer GA and adding newly passed ones).  This system of adding manually the articles is somewhat of a pain.  I know there is some discussion of getting a bot to count the GA nominees, so maybe this could be added as one of the bots tasks.  Biomedeng 16:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If by "canvas the Talk pages" is meant look for the GA template, that's the same as checking the GA category. (Note Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Good articles by quality and statistics.) A bot could remove probably remove delisted pages, but how would new articles be added to appropriate categories on WP:GA automatically? Gimmetrow 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first script used to update the GA page automatically, GAAuto, did this very same function, though it was some pretty deep Perl programming, I dunno how it figured out categories, though it sometimes messed up. Homestarmy 17:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It did not automatically categorize articles - for every new article it asked in which category/subcategory it should go. I suppose if someone did this regularly the categories would become familiar, but this was not an easy process. Gimmetrow 17:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you put the category into the GA template, a bot could then "auto" categorize the articles. howcheng  {chat} 05:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy of statistics 

message: I have proposed a WikiProject award, the Good Article Badge. Though it is a project award it is meant to be handed out to anyone for great contributions to GAs or GAC or GAR etc. See the proposal at : Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#WikiProject_Good_articles, voice your opinion and discuss there. Thanks. IvoShandor 12:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA award 

message: I just attempted a physical head count of GA's, and came up with a total of 2,155 (as of see timestamp). Does anyone want to check my math on this? If I'm right, we should update. Chubbles 06:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head Count 

message: The description of good articles on this page is awful. The first paragraph is bulky and pretty useless - at any rate, can't somebody make sure that there aren't two sentences starting "Currently, ... articles ..."? 172.143.52.186 17:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor introductory text 

message: Pass step 4 (final step) at Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates indicates to increment the GA count in both the article section at Wikipedia:Good_articles and the total count.  It looks like the total count is automatically generated by a JavaScript reference.  I suspect this is an improvement that hasn't made its way into the documentation, but didn't want to update the documentation myself since I'm only 75% confident. Edurant 21:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Counts 

message: There are now so many Simpsons GAs (22 out of 27 television episode articles) it might be a good idea to separate it under a catagory of its own. This has been spurred by this featured topic drive. I was thinking of even subdividing the episodes according to series, although this may prove more viable as even more episodes are added. If no-one objects, I'll siphon the Simpson's articles off the TV episodes catagory. JameiLei 18:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I probably wouldn't, its better to have 27 in one category than 22 in one and 5 in another, when they are essentially the same thing. Maybe if all of the first nine seasons are ever promoted. Gran2 20:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Simpsons 

message: I have just done a manual recount of the total articles.  Individual categories have been recounted, and the totals added to get the "big number" at the top of the page.  If someone could check my math, that would be great.  Also, I am going to start a reorganization of the page, given the following issues:
#Biographical articles are all over the place.  For example, monarchs are listed in several categories; politicians in several different ones; religious figures in several different ones.  I am going to try to make the articles better organized.  A top-level Biography category may be appropriate at this point to better organize things as well, but I will let that for future discussion.
#Some categories are getting too large.  I will be spliting these into reasonable sized categories.  Specifically, I was thinking of spliting the Tropical Cyclone category by location (atlantic, pacific, indian).
#A few misplaced articles need better homes.
If anyone wants to check my work and clean up after me, feel free.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total updated by manual count; reorganizing too 

message: I've created "random redirect pages" for featured and good articles. The list of GAs/FAs ist updated hourly. Link if you want, don't if you don't :) --Dapete?? 08:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random good/featured articles 

message: *I've noticed that the composition Mythodea is under both the "Architecture" and "Recordings and compositions" subcategories on WP:GA; it would appear (to my untrained eye) that someone saw architecture on the cover and so listed it under architecture, but I could be wrong, so would anyone object to me removing it from the architecture listing? MarcK 04:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mythodea 

message: Any one else have views on splitting the project page?  From my perspective at 104 kbs or so it is getting a bit slow to upload and deal with.  --VS talk 11:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting 

message: Upon consideration, I must approve one development: the speedy delisting of Bertrand Russell. (Some would say that this was a compliment to the article; but that's another question.) If this project moved to a general system by which any two editors could list an article, and any one editor could delist it, it would be a lot less time consuming, and move towards a status where listing would be a consensus decision of Wikipedia as a whole, not of a handful of editors here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any two editors, even those who have heavily edited the article, or any one editor, who may have a personal vendetta against the article's subject or the way it is presented? (The latter of which has happened before) Homestarmy 23:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the detailed proposal below, I suggest that one of the supporting editors and any opposing editors must be uninvolved with the article (something for an admin to determine, if it comes to that). But the real protection against the solitary crank is that he is outnumbered; if it really is a good article, two uninvolved editors will say so. If he keeps on, and convinces noone, he will end up violating 3RR. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One good thing 

message: The trend here (which has certainly become long and winding) seems to be reaching some sort of consensus. Permit to try to sum it up.
*GA/R needs to be less adversarial and more instructional when bringing articles up for delisting. The ultimate goal is better articles after all, so correcting the problems and having a genuine GA class article would certainly be the best outcome. 
*Resolve the GA process' standing within W.P. 1.0. Eventually specific wikiproject A-class reviews will become the norm (I hope), but as it stands now the GA system is not ready (nor wants) to become historical. That said, there has been some discussion of changing the name of the project to something other that GA and I have yet to see any consensus on that issue (this might be a moot point).
*Use scientific citation guidelines for scientific articles. This has been addressed already if I'm not mistaken. The GA system has decided to adopt it.
* The GA process and scientific articles and wikiprojects should remain at a respectful distance when possible. (I am just throwing this one out there.) There has been a history of animosity between these two groups, and since Mathematics (and physics?)has an established in house A class review system, I think keeping a distance will not be very difficult. Some time will allow for the healing of old wounds.
:If I have missed something, please fill it in. Cheers--Cronholm144 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The bottom line?

message: How come there's good article but not good list or picture? But all of them have featured section. OhanaUnited 13:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as much requirement creep in those, so there's no need for one. --tjstrf talk 17:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I have noticed that certain types of lists can never qualify for WP:FL, and it seems there should be some way to acknowledge those. Is there a reason (other than the name) that WP:GA couldn't review lists? Gimmetrow 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Which types of lists are those? --tjstrf talk 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had in mind pages which explain field-specific jargon. Since these pages do not usually contain many links, they did not qualify as "useful". I see the WP:WIAFL criteria changed back in February though, so maybe this is no longer the case? Gimmetrow 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Featured Lists are much easier to come by than Featured Articles.  If the truth be told, since there is little prose, and there are likely a small set of unambiguous and reliable sources, any list that would meet a hypothetical "Good List" criteria is likely to meet the current "Featured List" criteria as well.  The hold up on Featured Articles is usually the Brilliant/Compelling writing requirement.  With so little writing, lists just don't have that problem.  There just wouldn't be enough of a difference between "GL" and "FL" to warrent a process for that.  To get an article from GA to FA status often takes months of solid work.  A featured list can be created in short order; the two lists I have created and brought to featured status actually spent less time from creation to nomination than from nomination to promotion.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know a list does not have to have links if the items in the list are not notable enough for individual articles. See point 3. in part (a) of section 1. on WP:WIAFL. - Suicidalhamster 22:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Again, let me reiterate that's a NEW criteria, so maybe things have changed. Gimmetrow 04:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good list, Good picture? 

message: GAC is a lightweight process - most of us agree that it should continue to be.  I very much like the idea that nobody can either remove from GAC or actively demote an article without making a significant effort to fix it.  However, there are some tricky issues floating around that.  Suppose, for example, you have an article that is absolutely marvellous - gorgeous prose, fantastic layout, great photos - but not one single reference of any kind.  If you are not an expert in that field, how will you ever manage to make six meaningful edits?  You can't add references because you probably don't own the relevent books or even know which books to look at.  However, a totally unreferenced article shouldn't make it through to GA status...not matter how good it otherwise is.  So you have a body of articles that cannot be passed into GA status because they clearly don't qualify - but cannot be removed from the GAC list because none of the reviewers can make six meaningful edits to it - over time, the number of articles in GAC limbo would increase without limit.
For the purposes of this discussion - there are three classes of problem an article can have and I think we need to treat them differently:
# Problems with copyright, referencing, notability, etc.
#: In these cases, a reviewer ought to be able to see that there is a problem - complain about it and reject (or demote) the article without having to contribute to it.  We can't expect a typical reviewer in a lightweight process to be able to replace copyrighted text or images - they probably won't have access to the right books to do great referencing or have any way to fix notability issues short of referring the article to WP:AfD.  The demand that they perform six edits before rejecting is impossible (or at least totally unreasonable) to meet - so let's not require that in these cases.
#::Well, I was thinking of making it a suggestion, and seeing what happens. But Geometry guy doesn't actually require six edits to fix the problem; just six substantive edits. And anyway, rewriting a copyvio, or finding some source (not the best, or the one the original author used) for some fact in an otherwise excellent article is not all that hard. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No - that was fine - I've added more of my own comments in amongst yours. SteveBaker 13:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In your example, there was once a project designed specifically for unreferenced articles, called Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Unreferenced GA task force It appears to of stopped due to lack of interest, not because of any opposition to the idea. Of course, making new classifications for other kinds of articles seems like a fine idea if people are interested in it, but why not simply make the new wikiprojects or new project pages for the idea, instead of trying to remove or radically alter parts of the GA system? If GA doesn't change, that doesn't stop anyone from making their own classification project(s). Homestarmy 23:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urgh - please - no more new task forces - no new categories of award - keep it simple!  Adding more and more complicated and subtle variations on the basic GA/FA mechanism simply divides the available pool of reviewers. Having fewer reviewers will inevitably mean either (a) long (and growing) backlogs or (b) shoddy reviews due to lack of time spent on doing the review.  Keeping the system to two clear stages means that we keep the effort where it's needed. SteveBaker 13:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is horrible...WT:GA just turned into WT:RFA. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 05:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More suggestions. 

message: Whatever happens, we should at least do something about the odd GA/A gap (The GA/Ap?). It's strange that GA has to be approved through a process, A is (ignoring some WikiProjects, at least) handed out like B or Start, then FA is a process again. This results in A-Class being under used, and articles marked as A-Class that are not Good Articles can be confusing to those who don't understand the current situation. Pagrashtak 20:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best thing is to regard GA, whatever it turns out to be, as a process on its own, and remove it from the sequence of evaluations. In this discussion, we have seen it (effectively) placed below B as the minimum standard to escape deletion; and suggested that it be merged with FA. This is a sign that it is outside the scale. If it becomes the mass evaluation suggested above, it would be a changing pool of articles for B, A, and FA to look at, because GA would be articles that at least two editors like, and that more editors insert than remove. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't change A class article status even if an article loses GA status, unless its obviously a pretty terrible article, its just too hard to tell what A class really means. I know that the 1.0 people once discussed possibly removing the GA designation from their templates, and I know the Chemistry wikiproject once refused or currently refuses to allow articles to be classed as GA class in their templates, (Don't ask me how that makes sense, if they don't want any articles classed as GA class, then why does their template allow the classification?) but from my point of view, removing the GA classification from the wikiproject rankings would be better discussed on some 1.0 talk page somewhere, didn't they make the classification scheme in the first place? Homestarmy 00:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be thinking of this.  The main reason is simply historical - nothing against GA!  The 1.0 assessment scheme evolved out of this scheme, not the other way round.  The last substantial edit to this assessment scheme was in May 2005, many months before the GA project existed.  We could perhaps update it, including the possibility to allow GA officially, though we do like to encourage people to put a tag based on the opinions of the WikiProject. Walkerma 03:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really the idea that they don't have a GA classification that gets me, its just that i've bumped into people reverting the GA class in the templates to B or something, and I really don't understand why their template even accepts GA class as an option. Homestarmy 04:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA class can be useful as a tag that is better than unassessed-class, so I can see a reason to allow it.  But we'd really prefer the project to judge as A or B.  Maybe we should officially add GA to the scheme, but at this point it's moot - any GA should've been assessed by the project long before.  There is certainly no obvious hostility at WP:Chem towards GA; we had a run of delisted GAs recently, which hurt (see the comments I'm adding later), but I like to think we still maintain a good attitude towards the GA project!  Walkerma 04:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about switching A-class with GA-class (and vice versa)? A-class will be an article that is considered a better version of B-class and there're no cleanup tags. GA-class will be superior to A-class. Once the new A-class has been reviewed and passed the criteria then it's GA. Of course, the criteria for GA is more relax than FA. OhanaUnited 07:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The GA/A gap 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
I believe the major problem with this page is its name. WP:WIAGA is largely formal - and its criteria  are being applied entirely formally. An article can be approved here and be a badly written polemic; it can be a good article and rejected, either from the caprice of the initial reviewer, or through purely formal defects. Yet the name of this page implies that what it lists are good articles;  what it delists are bad articles. This is divisive and inflammatory.  If it is moved to a neutral name, I foresee no further reason ever to interact with this project again, doubtless a relief to both of us. Any move would of course apply to all subpages  and the templates should be rewritten.  
*Move. While tempted by Wikipedia:Articles with footnotes, I could live with WP:WikiProject Criteria or even WP:Article format.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment GA fits uncomfortably into the Wikipedia 1.0 rating system (the scale Stub-Start-B-GA-A-FA) because WP:WIAGA is applied so exactingly in areas of presentation and (especially) citation, that an article which survives GAR can be nearly ready for FAC already, so what is the point of A class? This problem is particularly bad for technical articles, which often begin their lives as being already technically accurate, but incomprehensible and unsourced: such articles need to be encouraged to improve step-by-step, rather than make an impossible leap from B to GA. I have also seen poor articles promoted to GA, and good articles demoted, because the reviewers were not in a good position to appreciate the deficiencies or the qualities of the article. I have commented on this issue at WP:ANI#confrontational user and WP:GA/R#Georg Cantor. Geometry guy 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And not just in mathematical/scientific subjects; the present review of Anaximander is just as bad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not a problem with the criteria (see Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured); it's a problem with the users who aren't reading the criteria correctly. They still think GA is FA minus one, yet they probably haven't bothered to look at the revised criteria. GAreview has a lot of issues, as do certain GA reviewers. I'm generally proud of the criteria (remember, it says plainly that it measures a minimum standard of decent quality); I'm just sickened with the process. — Deckiller 15:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Also, Gimmetrow's idea isn't a bad one. Currently, there is confusion project wide as to what the heck A-class means and how one attains it. A move to a project wide A-class review (albeit probably in an altered form from the current GA process) could be a good idea. The only really big problem there, is, how do you figure out what to do with current GAs, massively delist and have thousands of articles resubmitted for A class reviews? That seems a bit rash, but depending on how it would work many current GAs may not be up to A-class. Again, I don't care all that much because of views posted in the following section. IvoShandor 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move (May)