Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 7

message: I have talked to Nehrams2020 and we both think that there should be another backlog elimination drive so I would like other editors' opinions as well. This time the drive will take about a month (the last one was 2 weeks) and I think if we have a longer duration we can take care of more GAC. I also need ideas on what awards to be handed out other than just GA medal of merit because I have taken a look at WP:BS and Commons, then realize there's no other awards that can be handed out for the backlog elimination. OhanaUnitedTalk page 09:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's always the core group of barnstars, the original and its offshoots. IvoShandor 10:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there are 3 barnstars that can be used - "The Original Barnstar", "The Working Man's Barnstar" (reviews def. can be said to be 'laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks.') and "The Special Barnstar". Infact, i think it would be best if we can create a "reviewer barnstar" provided to people who spend a lot of effort in reviewing articles at GA and FA levels. --Kalyan 13:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then we need someone to create one. OhanaUnitedTalk page 11:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another GAC backlog elimination drive 

message: Will someone knowledgeable about the GA process please clean up the situation at Talk:Raëlian Church ?  There are continuing errors showing up in the error category for , which appear to be partly stemming from some terminology used by GA.   uses the terminology GA review, although the template is used when evaluating a GA nominee (isn't GAN different than GAR?).  The result is that GAR events are added to the articlehistory, with someone then deleting them because the article was never added.  This is a mess; can someone please figure out what the correct terminology is, what processes have been in play at Raelian church (I don't understand how there can be three failed reviews if the article is still listed at GAC), and clean up the article's edit history and templates to match ?  Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen PocklingtonDan as the GA Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 7th July 2007. PocklingtonDan is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were 1. PocklingtonDan 2. Vimalkalyan 3. CloudNine 4. Hersfold 5. Z1720. Epbr123 11:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Reviewer of the Week - w/e 7/7/2007 

message: It would be helpful if reviewers would start using the section heading "Good Article Nomination review" on talk pages rather than "Good Article review", as this is easily confused with "Good Article Review". Thanks. Epbr123 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like i've reccommended for months, just rename GA/R back to Good Article/Disputes, its not like GA/R mandates that commenters actually give a thorough review of an article anyway. Homestarmy 22:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you raname GAR, using a template that says review for a GAC or GAN (nomination or candidate) still introduces three different terms.  If it's Good Article Candidate or Good Article Nomination, the template should agree, and be consistent with  usage.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is the deal with  and  ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a nomination is the act of making the article a candidate. The GAReview template is for the GAC page so people don't accidently review an article while someone else is reviewing it, and GAList is a template many reviewers seem to like using in their reviews. Homestarmy 01:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Good Article Nomination review" not "Good Article review" 

message: :To indicate the reviewed version of a Good Article, replace nnnnn with the id number of the reviewed version. This number may be found in the URL of the archived version.
The id number can not be obtained until you archive it. How do you do this? I believe this text needs clarification.AshLin 16:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you do the candidate review on the talk page, so any editing to talk page doesn't affect the article. Second, there're 2 ways to obtain the "nnnnn" code. One is click "Permanent link" in toolbox on the left side nav bar. Another way is go to history and click on the last edit's date&time. However, I'm more concerned with using this template. Everyone should be using  instead of  as recommended by the template itself. Should we change the instructions to prepare for the upcoming backlog elimination drive? OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll update the main page so that it reads better. Please oversee that I do not make things more unclear. Regards. AshLin 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  ArticleHistory has a much larger learning curve to it than just the GA template, and a reviewer might have to work pretty hard to harvest history for other ArticleHistory events wihch often aren't even recorded until an article reaches FA status, that'd be a pretty big discouragement for many reviewers i'd think. Homestarmy 17:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to correct a lot of articlehistory templates done incorrectly by GA; please just use the GA template, and let GimmeBot update articlehistory.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The following text is not clear 

message: I thought Akebono Taro represented a good article, however there is one editor who disagrees, and I am trying to resolve the situation without resorting to an edit war. However, I think this means that Akebono Taro cannot represent a Good Article under these conditions at this time.  Is there a proper procedure to delist or can I just erase it from this section.  ThanksXinJeisan 07:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting an article 

message: User INFO-CENTER slapped the tag under my article nom (Development history of The Elder Scrolls series; also Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume), but it appears he's since gone out to lunch. He hasn't edited in 4 days, and the last thing he did was create a cute little template with the words: "Wikipedia user Information Center (talk · contribs) is temporarily inactive," and add it to his user page. I left him a message on his talk page the day of, but he hasn't responded since. That's somewhat frustrating. Is there protocol for what to do in cases like this? Can the tag be removed and the article reviewed by another? Geuiwogbil 04:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's something he does a fair bit ;)  Just remove the review tags, and someone (I'll do one if you like) will get to them soon.  Giggy UCP 04:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I'd like that very much. It's just so...weird, to put the tag there and then...go on vacation? Okay, I'll remove the tag from my article, and let Juhachi decide what he wants to do with his nom. Thanks for the comment! Geuiwogbil 05:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete Review 

message: So how broad does a GA have to be on a small city. Any tips on Oregon, Illinois? I have done one city GA, Springfield, Illinois but I think it was probably beyond the minimum when I submitted it. Is the Oregon article broad enough? What would need to be included to make it so? Any words would be appreciated. Thanks. IvoShandor 15:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City articles 

message: Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Awadewit as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 14th July 2007. Awadewit is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Awadewit2. LaraLove3. The Rambling Man4. Nehrams20205. LordHarris. Epbr123 10:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC Reviewer of the Week - w/e 14/7/2007 

message: - I made this template to make informaing people that their GA has been or is being reviewed quick, easy and preset. Take a look GA reviewers, and tell me what you think. I appreciate all feedback. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review template 

message: Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen The Rambling Man as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 21st July 2007. The Rambling Man is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. The Rambling Man2. Meowist3. Awadewit4. Johnfos5. Mouse Nightshirt. Epbr123 11:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rambling Man really deserves this.  Excellent work! Giggy UCP 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC Reviewer of the Week - w/e 21/7/2007 

message: Is there now a policy to dispense with putting GACs on hold? I can understand if the article in question is fundamentally flawed in many areas, but in the Bob Cousy article for instance, the article was failed in less than half a day when many aspects of the article (e.g. coverage, sources, image, stability) IMO at least, ensured that it was not far from a GA pass. Putting the nomination on hold would have encouraged a more interactive process, and the edit history shows that at least a trio of editors were on standby to address any loose ends. A pass can conceivably be expeditious, but an expedited fail (whatever the aim) is probably unncessary. I pass the preceding final comments without specific reference to the Cousy example, because I do not know if it is indeed near GA quality but am merely speaking from editing articles which made GA. Chensiyuan 14:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my perspective, an article has got to be pretty bad not to be put on hold, but it does depend on how interactive and useful the comments following a GA are.  But I completely agree, just failing them doesn't tend to encourage editors to make the changes... The Rambling Man 15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't wish to reopen the case but I think looking at the Cousy article it really leans more towards decent than disastrous. Looks like the editors have to just take the fail as an opportunity to address any legitimate concerns. Chensiyuan 15:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The editors have two ways of dealing with this. They can either adress the concerns and re nominate it explaining what happenned (this is why the "on hold" was created), or they can go to WP:GA/R for the GAC to be reviewed. I would, however, make sure everything is OK by posting the article at WP:PR andexplaining there what happened.--SidiLemine 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instant GA failures 

message: Is there still necessarily a backlog on this page? Looking at the list, it looks like most of the articles in the list are on hold, with very few that have not been reviewed. Not sure if we need the backlog tag currently? Dr. Cash 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't. Tim Vickers 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I counted about four articles there without anything underneath, so I've taken off the tag. Tra (Talk) 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully we won't have to add it for again for a long time. The current drive really helped to bring the backlog down more than was expected. Good job to all editors who have helped, and keep at it. --Nehrams2020 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay.  Top marks all round.  The Rambling Man 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog? 

message: Is there any particular reason why the categories in GAC are not consistent with those at GA? LaraLove 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main categories (Arts, Social Sciences, etc.) are.  The minors aren't, for some inexplicable reason...so that's something that could be changed. Giggy UCP 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so is there any opposition to altering the list of subcategories to be consistent with those at WP:GA? Lara♥Love 05:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Four words: Good luck with that (Yes, it has my support). Giggy UCP 08:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: The subject of the Institut Le Rosey article has very little public information available. The article recently failed a GA nomination primarily due to a lack of information (student life, academics, athletics). If the article's subject does not have enough information available, is it ineligible for GA status? Thanks, -- AJ24 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two sections which warn about possible future incoming information give me pause. However, if you can lay out the case for this article being as compleate as it possibly can be using reliable sources, and if the article didn't fail any other GA criteria, i'd be inclined to pass it, since the broadness requirement is "significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed. ". Homestarmy 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility question 

message: I noticed because one of them nominated Solar power. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. No rules discriminate against it. Whether it fails or not is a seperate matter. Will (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I was just wondering since I'd never seen it before. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 16:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can IP editors nominate GAs? 

message: Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 28th July 2007. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Blnguyen2. The Rambling Man3. Drewcifer30004. Giggy5. VanTucky. Epbr123 11:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering Blnguyen's history this past month involving multiple tagging of articles at a time via the GAReview template, thereby "hogging" them and preventing other editors from reviewing them, it's no wonder he got so many reviewed over others. I don't think this award is very well deserved at all, and is a disgrace to the GA system, it's medal of merit, and other barnstars. The award should be retracted immediately. Dr. Cash 03:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh snif.  If you were in the top five, that rant might be understandable.  As it is...anyway, GAReview is used to stop edit conflicts, you're more then welcome to take articles that have been tagged for a few days.  On another note...woo, 4th :D Giggy UCP 04:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could care less if I was in the top five. I didn't even bother with this contest once I realized it was just a race for barnstars and review volume. That's not what the GA Review process is supposed to be about. And someone like Blnguyen that tags 5 and 6 articles with GAReview is not just "stopping edit conflicts" ... he's abusing the system. Dr. Cash 06:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC Reviewer of the Week - w/e 28/7/2007 

message: Is there a rule about passing articles that have been put on hold? User:Tarret has passed article Victoria Cross (Canada) that i had put on hold. Despite the Lead missing references, two images with WP:FURG Concerns, and when asked why he passed it he said : "in my opinion it was good enough for GA". -FlubecaTalk 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Tarret has done this a few times.  Take it to WP:GA/R, OR be bold and delist it yourself, then put it back on hold (with the same issues as before).  And leave Tarret a note asking to stop. Giggy UCP 01:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, don't take it to GA/R. Delist and return to on hold, explain why on the article talk page, and drop him a line on his talk page letting him know that it's not cool to take over other's reviews. Lara♥Love 05:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I clarified that on the front page -FlubecaTalk 01:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh Hold passing ? 

message: I'm sure I remember good articles used to have a little image -  - in the top right, the same way featured articles have .  What happened to that?  --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed in the past, ad nauseum. You might want to start checking the debates here and here. Dr. Cash 04:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Are GA reviewers allowed to use bots to review the articles? I was surprised and dismayed at this recent bot review that I received. I can run a bot if I want. Awadewit | talk 02:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, that's scary to me.  GA Review is just as much supposed to help the article grow as it is to assess it and that bot does not provide valuable feedback of any kind. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: They left a single sentence and the bot review. That doesn't look like using the bot to supplement his/her own thoughts to me. Awadewit | talk 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me explain myself.  The bot did not review the article, I did.  I looked it over and assessed that it met the GA article criteria.  That bot list is merely a list of bot generated suggestions to improve the article.  I find it a useful tool in creating some good suggestions to improve an article.  I'd always recommend another peer review to work towards further improvement on an article.  Personally, I'm not the best peer reviewer, so when I pass an article for GA status, I hand out the bot's suggestions and the assumption that getting a peer review is open if you want more suggestions.  DoomsDay349 18:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might mention that I agree with Corvus coronoides that those bot recommendations are useless. I would agree with you that further peer reviews will always help an article (that is why I have one open now), but you provided no review at all. GAC is supposed to help an article "grow" as Corvus cornoides said. How can I make the article better, if you provide no real suggestions? The bot lists petty style issues and can't differentiate between well-worded and poorly-worded sentences. If you know that you are not a very good peer reviewer, I am not quite sure why you are reviewing articles at all. As an administrator, I would expect that you would know and abide by your own self-acknowledged limitations. Awadewit | talk 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It looks like the reviewer in question was just running the semi-automated Peer Review script to give the article some extra help, his actual review was terse, but despite the actual GA review's unhelpful lack of detail, I can't think of anything particularily wrong or invalid about it. I don't think a bot could be programmed that would be able to automatically review an article for GA status, several of the criteria are too deliberatly flexible for a mere script to be able to accuratly grade for, you'd need some very high level polymorphic script that can gain nearly human-like understanding into intuition, and for that, even the oft-quoted Wikipedia is not paper essay would not be ready to deal with objections concerning the increadibly complicated and space-hogging script that would result. Homestarmy 02:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't a review but a list of non-pertinent recommendations. The bot belongs somewhere else (if at all), although I doubt the creator had any bad intentions. Chensiyuan 02:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Terse? and "despite the actual GA review's unhelpful lack of detail"? That's precisely the problem. The reviewer was relying on a bot (which is incapable of making helpful suggestions) to stand in for his/her review. Awadewit | talk 03:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a chance that DoomsDay349 is telling the truth, and that really couldn't find anything wrong with the article. Epbr123 22:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only that were true. There is no such thing as the perfect article. :) Awadewit | talk 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An article doesn't have to be perfect to be a GA, it just has to not have any flaws in it that would run afoul of the GA criteria. That seems more easily within the realm of possibility. Homestarmy 02:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But GA reviews are not simply supposed to determine an article's GA-worthiness or lack-of-worthiness. They are also supposed to include "suggestions to improve the article" (WP:GAC). Awadewit | talk 00:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I should point out DoomsDay349 made similar reviews at Talk:St. Vrain massacre and Talk:Gilbert Stuart. Epbr123 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot reviews 

message: I just wanted to comment that since I stopped reviewing articles for GA status (because my comfort level doing so decreased--a lot--not because I didn't like to do them) this part of the encyclopedia has dramatically improved. Reviews are quickly completed, usually in not more than a few days, compare this with the period over one month I once waited for a review on Historic district. I would also note that the reviewers seem to understand the criteria and have a good grasp of the differences between GA and FA everytime I interact with WP:GA. Thanks a lot for all your quality work everybody. : ) IvoShandor 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the backlog drives that do it :)  Now that we actually have a WP:GAC page you can load in less then an eon, it all gets done a lot quicker! Giggy Talk | Review 22:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review-speed and quality 

message: Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen The Rambling Man as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 4th August 2007. The Rambling Man is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. The Rambling Man2. Drewcifer30003. Awadewit4. LaraLove5. VanTucky. Epbr123 00:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay (again :P) for The Rambling Man!  I'm so going to win this next week :P Giggy Talk | Review 01:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember not to review articles solely to boost one's own "review count" for the purpose of achieving some pointless "GA Medal of Merit". Reviewers should review articles because they have some expertise in a subject and wish to contribute to the article's improvement in the process towards FA status. Dr. Cash 05:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember that not all reviewers are here to "boost one's own "review count"", most, if not all of us are here to help with the backlog.  Why not help out?  The Rambling Man 11:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is currently no backlog. It has been eliminated. Dr. Cash 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why... The Rambling Man 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Showoff :P Besides, there's always a backlog. Giggy Talk | Review 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you think the backlog has been eliminated, why are there currently 60 outstanding articles not being reviewed?  The Rambling Man 09:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't just take quantity of articles into account to determine if there's a backlog or not. You have to look at the dates of nomination. The oldest article on the page was that was not tagged with either GAONHold or GAReview was nominated on 7/28/2007, just over one week ago. The vast majority of articles on the page were nominated within the last several days. I'd say, if we accumulate lots of articles that have been unreviewed for a month or so, then we have a backlog. Dr. Cash 21:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So true. Not to mention that if The Rambling Man was only doing it for the award, he would have stopped a few dozen reviews ago. Lara♥Love 14:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC Reviewer of the Week - w/e 4/8/2007 

message: We have articles dating back to 28 July...currently 62 not reviewed, as opposed to 16 on July 30.  I've added the backlog notice back to the page :( Giggy Talk 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, no it's not Giggy. Wait until there are articles on the list that haven't been reviewed for at least three weeks. July 28 - August 8 is only 11 days, not even two weeks. Dr. Cash 03:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And we can't get to work on solving the problem before then? Giggy Talk 06:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing's really stopping work from getting done, anyway. I just don't like using the word "backlog" when there really isn't any. I could see, however, the benefit of maintaining a permanent list of, say, the "oldest unreviewed articles", to highlight the 5 or so articles that have been untouched for the longest period of time. What do others think of this? Dr. Cash 23:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Get on it... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sound of whip cracking* Lara♥Love 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified the backlog tag and added the list of the oldest five unreviewed articles. The list is updated by a bot, so it shouldn't be very hard to keep updated. But at least this will keep the list up there without the eternal backlog messages,... Dr. Cash 02:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool beans--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag appears to be using the old organization scheme... I assume this will be fixed when the bot updates the tag? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, not sure. I don't think the new organizational changes should make a difference to the bot, but we'll see what happens when it runs tonight. If it's an issue, I'll leave a message on the talk page of the bot, or it's maintainer. I did add a link to the bot's report page to that tag as well, since that could be useful to users. Dr. Cash 05:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at the report page again, yes, the bot will need to be updated. I have left a note on the talk page of the bot maintainer. Dr. Cash 05:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog picking up again... 

message: Many articles marked as Long Articles aren't when you you exclude tables, footnotes, images, infoboxes, etc... See Wikipedia:Article size. The size should only include "readable prose". I saw that the Kinston Indians article was tagged as a long article. The people who worked on this article made a special effort to keep the size under control according to the rules at Wikipedia:Article Size. 69.68.238.142 12:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely convinced of the necessity for the 'Long Article' qualifier. I can sort of see the logic behind it, in the sense of notifying a potential reviewer that an article may take longer than normal to review, but wouldn't most reviewers at least glance through an article first before deciding to take it on? Per the above comment, it can also be misleading... and who can be bothered to work out the actual prose length rather than just reading 'length in kb' off from the top of the edit page? EyeSereneTALK 17:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the long tab often deters newer reviewers, which can be considered a good thing in that there is the potential for more mistakes which may be overwhelming for an inexperienced reviewer. Lara♥Love 02:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Articles 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 11th August 2007. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Blnguyen2. Awadewit3. LaraLove4. The Rambling Man5. EyeSerene. Epbr123 12:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, the more and more that I see these updates, the more I realize two constants: (a) the backlog elimination drive has done a lot of good in both reducing the backlog at WP:GAC, increasing editor awareness in the Good article process, and contributing to increased quality of Good articles as a whole; (b) while there still remains a general issue with a couple of rather poor quality reviews, and probably a small percentage of reviewers that are just in it for the barnstars, I think this is the minority. The reviewers listed on the top five 'reviewer of the week' updates are, in fact, performing rather good reviews (and some, also with a good quantity AND quality of reviews). Specifically, it looks like my earlier criticism of Blnguyen was actually unwarranted, and rather pointless -- my apologies. Congrats this week to all of the aforementioned reviewers! Dr. Cash 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Well I accept the apology, there's no hard feelings. I've had a lot more headaches: User:Blnguyen/J'accuse and also heaps of people trolling WP:ANI and do forth using condemning me with questions about things which didn't happen. I also apologise for my rather aggressive and prickly reply to your original comments on my talk page. I only used the  tag once, although last time I did use it a few times, although when I checked I had at most two at a time in that status and none for more than 30 hours. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and the increased efficiency at GAC seems to be fuelling more demand. Which means that if we lift our game the expectations will continue to be lifted and it'll be like the rat-cycle thing. Anyway, if it fuels article growth then it is ok. I started reviewing more since I have got 15 GAs now, 11 of them in the last 2.5 months, so I guess as long as people are willing to reciprocate things should be ok. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well hurrah!  I think, in general, all reviewers have been acting in good faith.  Indeed, until I got the backlog drive notification I'd been somewhat absent in GA reviews.  The fact I've now (hopefully well) reviewed 67 articles in this drive is a testament to the backlog drive.  We're all fighting for the same thing and it's great to read Dr. Cash's retraction.  Long live GA.  The Rambling Man 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, you guys! You've done a spectacular job! Now, no resting on your laurels: there's work to be done!! Chop chop!! Just messing... --lincalinca 10:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC Reviewer of the Week - w/e 11/8/2007 

message: Can someone have a look at this please. On August 10, I turned down the GAC. It was the second in a week. The main author,  appears to have self-passed his article. I usually do not go and revert some article that I have already judged, so I am reporting here. In my mind, the article is still at least totally unsourced. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is being discussed at GAR. Wrad 02:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I caught this earlier today and placed it at WP:GA/R. Dr. Cash 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Waitoreke]] 

message: Well, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have gone ahead and reorganized the candidates page to more closely match the actual GA list.  Some categories were condensed to save space, but the two pages should mirror each other now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note - the Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates#Nomination_categories section needs to be redone to fit the new organization system.  I would do it, only I tried and got confused. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed it.  Seeing as it was redundant anyways (There IS a table of contents in the page...)--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I put it back? I literally use that every time I go to the page because it saves time and effort to scroll through so much boilerplate. It did not need to be altered. It was right as it was. Only subcategories were altered, not the eleven main categories. Lara♥Love 02:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And, on a bigger note, thank you for doing that. I think the condensing of subcategories to save space is fantastic. The nominations page doesn't have nearly as many articles listed and thus does not need to be broken up as much. Great work! Lara♥Love 02:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have at it.  If you put it back, make sure you match the list to the top-level categories as they now appear.  There have been a few minor changes to order and such... And thanks for noticing!  My goal in organizing the nom page was to combine making it easy to place the nominated article in the right category at WP:GA and still avoid having hundreds of unused categories.  I think I struck an OK balance.  If you think we need to condense more, be my guest.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I use this list, too. So I've added it back, as well as matched it up with the new categories. It's much more convenient to scroll the short distance to that list, than to scroll all the way through the larger TOC,... Dr. Cash 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It has occurred to me that it might be helpful to post a notice alerting reviewers to the style guides articles in various categories should conform to. For example, WP:MUSTARD for music articles and WP:PW/Style guide for Pro Wrestling articles. Before I knew about these, I noted what I thought were mistakes in my reviews, but was later informed that there are different standards for these topics. With that said, if others agree, it could possibly go under the nomination categories. It seems like an appropriate spot, and there's room. Thoughts? Lara♥Love 15:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for that - it sounds like an excellent idea to have them in there somewhere. EyeSereneTALK 15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a comment, the page seems much more cluttered now and the table of contents is difficult to parse for information. Just a comment, makes it a bit more difficult to navigate. IvoShandor 09:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I would like to see a considerable reduction in subheadings; the table of contents is way too long, and there are as many subheadings as there are GACs. We are lucky to have two or three science candidates in total, yet there are dozens of natural sciences subheadings! I'd like to see someone "be bold" here and reduce this clutter. –Outriggr § 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might look a bit less cluttered if the word "candidates" was removed from each subheading. Epbr123 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the TOC to only display the 2nd and 3rd level headings, which eliminates most of the 4th level headings. We could adjust it to only show the 2nd level headings, but I still think the 3rd level headings are pretty useful, and it's overall much cleaner than it was. I've also removed the word 'candidates' from each subheading, and modified the instructions on each section to match this new arrangement. Dr. Cash 04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finished reorganizing the page. 

message: Can an article be both a WP:FL and a WP:GA?  In the near future Chicago Marathon will likely be nominated at WP:FLC.  From my experience and the recent promotion of List of winners of the Boston Marathon, I think it has a good shot at promotion.  Its text also has a modest shot at qualifying for WP:GA.  Can an article be both a WP:GA and a WP:FL?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  17:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article looks more like an article with a list in it really, rather than a list accompanied by some explanatory text. The title would suggest an actual article anyway.  Homestarmy 04:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives was for over a year listed as both FL and GA. I noticed when it was summarily delisted from GA a couple weeks ago. Gimmetrow 06:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA does not handle list, from my understanding, because any hypothetical set of "good list" criteria would be largely identical to the "featured list" criteria, and thus it would be superfluous.  The very nature of lists means that there is much less of a difference between a "bad" list, an "adequate" list and a "great" list; basically the list is either complete or it isn't; and it is well referenced or it isn't.  Thus, GA does not handle lists, and instead recommends that they be taken straight to FLC.  If an article that is primarily a list does end up being in both places, it SHOULD be taken down from GA without prejudice; featured content shouldn't remain at GA.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  And yet, the counter-example was there for over a year... Gimmetrow 18:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet the existance of said counterexample means nothing.  With over 2000 GA's occassionally an unqualified article remains on the list longer than one would like. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  The FBI most wanted article seems more like a list with a bloated lead giving some explanation, its not really enough of an article to be a GA I think, and even if it was, all of the article content seems to be in the lead, so that's a fail whether its an article or list. Homestarmy 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And yet, you did not fight to delist it despite being aware of it, so apparently it wasn't a serious issue. Not long ago someone asked if an article could be both FA nd FL. There is a grey area of sorts with "annotated lists", or lists with substantial text, and someone had found a FA that was remarkably similar in structure to some recent FLs. While a number of editors objected, a number had no problem with the idea of a page being both FL and FA. Gimmetrow 02:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLC/GAC 

message: For those of you passing GAs, remember that you want to set both the "oldid" and the "topic" parameter in the GA template that you add.  (If you're adding an ArticleHistory bit, you just need the "topic" parameter.)   Now that the GA and GAC topics are normalized, you can easily figure out what the topic parameter is, either from this short list or by setting it to the full name of the very top level category (NOT The subcategories!)  Oldid can be get by looking at the url for the "permanent link" on the article page in the toolbox on the left side.
The main reason for this is that we've just gotten through classifying all the uncategorized GAs, and while the :Category:Uncategorized good articles remains nearly empty, it does fill up at a interesting rate, I found 9 there today after cleaning it out 3 days ago. We don't want these to fill up as bad as they were before (like around 1000 when we started the task force drive).  --Masem 05:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was around 2,500 including AH-tagged articles. Thanks for posting this. Lara♥Love 19:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  'If you're adding an ArticleHistory bit, you just need the "topic" parameter.' What is this intended to say?  needs an oldid, too. Gimmetrow 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I meant something like that -- more along the lines that if you are adding a AH bit, you likely already know that you need to add the oldid as part of the information, but the topic parameter is also part of AH too that needs to be included when an article clears GA (as it is a more recent addition to the template). --Masem 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A helpful reminder 

message: Hi there, I just wanted to drop a line about User:OhanaUnited. He just pretty unilaterally removed 1-month old GA Red Auerbach, just citing minor shortcomings in 2 lines, and then failing the article after 4 days. He completely failed to inform the main editors (User:Onomatopoeia, User:Chensiyuan and others), never listed the article on WP:GA/R for discussion, and never listed the article on WP:NBA for any discussion for our WikiProject, yet stating "he did everything he did to let everybody know", see Wikipedia:Editor review/OhanaUnited. Is this 99,9% unilateral, if-no-discussion-comes-I-just-retract-GA a new modus operandi I don't know about, or what is going on here? Thanks for reading. —Onomatopoeia 12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No he was completely wrong in trying to remove it without consensus as well as according to you, trying to hide the fact that he did that. It should probably be restored to GA and taken to WP:GA/R immediately.  T Rex | talk 12:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply, doing it now. Onomatopoeia 12:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is allowed to immedietly remove articles from the GA list if someone feels an article is obviously a failure, but of course, it is just as legal to contest such failures at GA/R, as I suppose you've already done. Homestarmy 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. Regarding the article, I think with all respect, that Red Auerbach is hardly a quick-delist candidate. In fact, OhanaUnited "worst" argument was a missing fair use tag, which he could have easily inserted himself instead of for the delist. I put the article on WP:GA/R, and now I see what happens. —Onomatopoeia 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not the only person that spotted faults in the review. LaraLove spotted it earlier than me. T Rex, do you think my action completely wrong? I am disappointed to see you stating the word "completely" because that is an outright violation of WP:AGF. Finish reading the "this page in a nutshell" in AGF? Take a deep breath, everyone, and read it again. My worst argument is the FUR tag, how about my BEST argument? Onomatopoeia admitted 2 references are problematic, agreed and corrected it. What this editor did was great, and improved the article.   And T Rex, how can I "hide" the fact that I did it? The history tells the whole story. I'll now wait for other editors opinions as well as the outcome from GAR. Have a good day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Answered on you talk page. Just to underline how BOGUS this GA retraction was, here OhanaUnited's quotes on the Red Auerbach talk page
*I'm expressing my concerns regarding this GA review. I felt that this article has passed the review even though it didn't meet the standards. First, notes and reference section should be merged. Reference #6 and #10 have no sources! Where did you obtain the information from? This article needs more varieties of references than the existing ones. I also found Image:RedMemshamrock.png lack of fair use rationales. Lead section should be summarized and shortened furthur. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Was there ANY warning? This was just a general remark, and at BEST, a non-binding appeal for copyedit. It was NEVER clear that GA delisting was a topic. —Onomatopoeia 10:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should assume good faith. It sure does look like Ohana made it clear that the article didn't meet standards at GA with this sentence: I felt that this article has passed the review even though it didn't meet the standards. He comes out and says it doesn't meet the standards. Considering his comment wasn't addressed for five days, I would say that's fair warning. After all, GA is about creating good articles, collaboratively, not about who can get the most green pluses. I don't see why everyone gets so offended at a "delisting." Who cares? Do you really think readers here have any idea what a GA is? Do you think they even care? Come on, everyone wants to have petty little bickering fits instead of trying to improve the encyclopedia, which is what GA is all about. Instead of everyone complaining here everytime someone does something they disagree with, how about just addressing the issue and relisting it for GAC, I don't see the big deal, because it isn't one, it's only GA not the end of existence.  IvoShandor 12:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming faith cuts both ways. None of your points make any sense, by the way. You're talking to a couple of folks, who like yourelf, have tried their level best in grinding out the GAs. Yet you think having GAs de-listed is no biggie. Ever heard of counter-productivity? Didn't that discourage you? Chensiyuan 13:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of your points make any sense. That's what they call a great argument. What would you rather have? All your precious GAs devaluated because the general GA level is near zero? Or having one delisted, and all the others considered near FAs?--SidiLemine 14:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Chensiyuan 14:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Having a GA delisted isn't counter-productive unless you don't use the opportunity to improve it. How none of my points make any sense, I am not sure. I have listed my own articles at GAR, I wouldn't care if it got delisted, I would fix it, discuss with others on how to fix it etc. In the end the designation of GA doesn't mean much other than a couple people thought it was good. It's not like GA reviews conducted by Joe Schmoe on complex topics have fleshed articles for accuracy or anything, just made sure there were sources, and everything was in line with proper English. The designation has little meaning outside of the circle of editors who participate in the process. This discussion is what is counter-productive, it isn't establishing any great ideas or new policies, it's just a couple pissed off people, complaining and one telling me nothing I say makes any sense. I am really tired of people like you (Chensiyuan). IvoShandor 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus GA retraction? 

message: Does anyone follow the "minimum of 2 days" part of the template?  It seems like if an article is improved in less that amount of time, there's no reason to wait until two days have passed (though obviously it's a good idea to avoid having articles on hold for more than a week).  17Drew 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you brought this up - I was wondering about this myself. Personally, I haven't been sticking to the 2-day minimum; if any issues have been addressed, and the article has settled down from being edited as a response to the GA review, I'll pass it anyway... I'd be interested to get other opinions too though. EyeSereneTALK 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've never payed attention to that. Of course, when I'm busy, I usually don't get around to a thorough final check until after that time... David Fuchs (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the purpose of the 2 day rule is to give editors enough time to fix the article before the reviewer fails it. If the problems are fixed in under 2 days, then it's ok to close the review early. Epbr123 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be a good idea to remove the last sentence and replace the second one with "However, an editor has placed this article on hold because it needs minor changes to meet the good article criteria.  Editors have one week from the time of the review to make the changes outlined below."?  That way, there's no implication that the article can't be passed before two days, and the article will still remain on hold for a week?  17Drew 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never followed a 2 day min. if the changes have been made. Drew's suggestion seems like a good clarification to me. VanTucky (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I once passed an article 20 minutes after adding the tag (David Fuchs - DoTA).  So I totally ignore it :) Giggy Talk 00:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: [outdent] Since there seems to be consensus that the two-day minimum wasn't helpful, I've reworded the template.  If anyone disagrees with the change though, please feel free to revert.  17Drew 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting it!! Not really. Seems reasonable to me. I agree with Epbr123, I think it's a matter of not failing it in less than two days. Lara♥Love 06:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors have no more than seven days from the time of the review to make the changes outlined below. This will influence the reviewer in passing or failing the article as a good article - I just noticed the new template. I am unsure what "this" refers to - it looks like the speed of the changes, rather than their quality, will affect the outcome. Awadewit | talk 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we not make it positive rather than negative, i.e. Editors have up to seven days from the time of the review to make the changes outlined. - at least two editors I've spoken to have really appreciated the GA process because of its personal nature, we should encourage this.  I had an article on hold for two weeks because I knew the principal editors were away.  There seemed little point in failing it when I knew they'd be back, and if they found that I'd just failed it out of policy they probably wouldn't have bothered.  The Rambling Man 22:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I like that better, too. Awadewit | talk 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *:I was considering that wording but I wasn't sure if that implied that the reviewer could fail it anytime in the next seven days.  On second thought though, it seems clear enough that that's not the case.  17Drew 03:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|GAonhold}} 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen The Rambling Man as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 25th August 2007. The Rambling Man is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. The Rambling Man2. Awadewit3. David Fuchs4. Derek.cashman5. Dinosaur puppy. Epbr123 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC Reviewer of the Week - w/e 25/8/2007 

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: The review of Harold Pinter seems to have turned sour. The first reviewer, the one listed as placing the hold on the candidates page, seems to have quit after getting into it with NYScholar over the style of referencing. Wrad is now discussing it at length with him, but no one seems to have officially taken up the review. I partly blame myself for this, as I originally took the review but wasted so much time doing outside research for accuracy that it just got silly and I reopened it for reviewing. Anyway, it seems to be at a standstill at the moment and I don't know what to do. From my perspective, NYScholar seems to be being unnecessarily combative and possibly having ownership issues. VanTucky (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say close it as fail. NYScholar has said himself (herself?) that he didn't apply for GA, so he probably won't care anyway. It doesn't meet the criteria and won't in the recent future. Wrad 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just failed it. Wrad 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contentious review 

message: I am currently reviewing Joe Nathan and it is my first review.  I think it is going well but i have two questions. 1) There are some remnants of passive voice, as the reviewer can i fix those and then pass the article? 2) If i cannot change them myself, can the article be passed if there are a small number of passive statements - i think the article is good overall. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know how to fix the problems and they aren't major then yes, you can fix them and pass the article. Or you could put it on hold and ask the nominator to fix the problems. T Rex | talk 20:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Alright, I'll do what i can and then pass the article ... i'll let you know when that happens in case you want to "review my review". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked over it and left notes on the talk page. LARA♥LOVE 03:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I replied there as well, thx Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review question 

message: Evidently some people at WT:FAC want to just axe GAC, period... David Fuchs (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like just one person, not sure if we should all jump into the discussion. Homestarmy 16:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of wasting our time arguing with Dev920, why not go and write some GAs? Currently, during my spare time, I am collating references for an article which I will write (and push to GA status) after my O Levels. By the way, I'll never take I Not Stupid (my first GA) to FAC, because she'll just tell me to "cite your sources or go f*** yourself" (in fact, if GA didn't exist, after rewriting the article, I would not have tried to spend hours researching for information, add references, upload screenshots, seek copy-editing and do everything possible to improve it to GA status).  --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a note... 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Johnfos as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 1st September 2007. Johnfos is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Johnfos2. Phil Sandifer3. The Rambling Man4. Derek.cashman5. Alientraveller. Epbr123 12:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC Reviewer of the Week - w/e 1/9/2007 

message: What is the consensus on passing articles that are well-sourced, but those sources are in languages other than English? I'm currently involved with one that has sources mostly in French (which thankfully I can just about manage) with no English equivalents. My inclination is to pass the article, but the guidance on WP:SOURCE seems to imply the citations should be professionally translated... which seems overly-picky for GA (although understandable at FA). Comments? EyeSereneTALK 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I normally give negative reviews on articles that are mostly sourced with foreign things, to the effect of there being only a few english sources overall. The way I see it, if I can't read almost every source, there's no way I can honestly say the article is well-referenced. Every foreign source could be unreliable and it would be nearly impossible for me, or most readers of Wikipedia I imagine, to tell. Of course, for articles where there are plentiful english sources along with many foreign ones, that doesn't matter so much. Homestarmy 16:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice wanted re foreign language sources 

message: Does a season fall under "Television show" or "television episode?"  --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a whole season is really just a collection of the episodes, so I think episodes would be the best place for it. One season doesn't represent an entire show all the time, since shows can have multiple seasons. Homestarmy 20:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the speedy reply.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of TV seasons 

message: Can we combine  and  into an extension of . Its a bit confusing the way it is currently and if this works there will be less templates to be used in this process. Tarret 20:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combining Templates 

message: The 2007 Rugby World Cup starts this weekend. Surely this is a highly inappropriate time to nominate an article which is guaranteed to be unstable for the next month and a half? Do other editors agree that the nomination should be rejected for this reason? --Peter cohen  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's definently cutting it way too close time-wise. Homestarmy 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we might have already discussed this here not too long ago,... Dr. Cash 19:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely does not meet the stability requirements. It should be renominated after the event has ended and the information has been updated. I'm sure editors will also be able to find more information and sources to include within the article at its conclusion. --Nehrams2020 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2007 Rugby World Cup]] nominated when just about to start 

message: Something is wrong with the syntax of FGAN, the optional closing comments field is not working (at least in Firefox on OSX, not that it should make a difference). VanTucky (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. --Ling.Nut 03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FGAN 

message: I have created a new template, , primarily intended to be used by newer or less experienced reviewers that have reviewed an article, but are sort of "sitting on the fence" regarding whether the article meets the GA criteria or not, but may not want to put the article on hold because it probably does meet the criteria. So this would allow them to tag an article on the WP:GAC page requesting that a more experienced reviewer come along and offer his/her second opinion on the matter. Or it could be used on some of the more controversial articles (the 2007 texas longhorn football season article issue might be an example of how this could have been used). It could also be used by experienced reviewers to request a 2nd opinion of a reviewer that might be more knowledgeable on the subject matter. I think this would also strengthen the overall GA program as a whole as well, as hopefully it's use would encourage reviews by more than one person (one of the major criticisms of the GA process) while still preserving the ability of one reviewer to pass some of the more straightforward candidates.
The template would like like this:
#  Dr. Cash 06:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like what I see! Drewcifer 07:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea.  Does a category get attached to the article so that they are easy to locate? Graeme Bartlett 08:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not this template, since it's intended to be placed on the WP:GAC page to alert other reviewers in the listing. But this template, , which could be placed on the talk page of the article, adds the article to the new category, Category:Good article nominees seeking second opinion. Dr. Cash 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is indeed a good idea (if used sparingly). Good work, Dr. Cash. Sijo Ripa 09:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, it would lighten the burden on GA/R.--SidiLemine 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I love that. Great idea! LARA♥LOVE 15:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it. I love it! Davnel03 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's no objections, and since there seems to be a reasonable consensus already, in around 24 hours, I'll begin using this template if required, since I'm new at reviewing GAC's. Should provide a good testing ground. Pursey 17:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant! Go full speed ahead! -- Reaper  X 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: [[Template:GA2ndopinion]] 

message: I noticed the above article has been on hold since 24th August, after a very perfunctory GA review; the situation really needs looking at by someone more experienced than me ;) EyeSereneTALK 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely needs changes made. I've stricken the the onhold from the page, left a note that it needs an experienced reviewer and updated the backlog template to include it as the first listed article. Thanks for posting this. Good catch. Lara♥ 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lal Masjid siege]] GA review problem 

message: Invasive species GA passed on 02 August 2007 but it is not listed at Wikipedia:Good articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lara♥ 14:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Invasive species]] 

message: Can we add an agriculture section to the GAC page somewhere, I didn't see one and added my nom in the miscellaneous section. IvoShandor 07:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please! see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias where the bias is mentioned: " Wikipedians' areas of expertise and interest tend more towards computer science and popular culture than more specialized areas such as agricultural science or Medieval art."  Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I would hold off on adding this right now. The current list of categories at WP:GAC have been recently updated to match the list of categories on the main WP:GA page. I don't think it's a good idea to just have anyone randomly adding categories without reaching consensus first, or else WP:GAC will get out of synch with WP:GA in another couple of months. For now, it's probably better to add the article under the 'miscellaneous' subheading, and propose a new category on the talk page. Dr. Cash 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Exact reason why I brought it up here first. :) IvoShandor 19:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Proposed_new_GA_category. IvoShandor 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agriculture 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Johnfos as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 8th September 2007. Johnfos is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Johnfos2. Pursey3. Derek.cashman4. EyeSerene5. The Rambling Man. Epbr123 10:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's great to see so many reviewers getting involved... thanks... Johnfos 10:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done again Johnfos.  I need to get back onto it again!  The Rambling Man 10:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't lecture me - I understand perfectly. LuciferMorgan 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The reviews are partially complete. I review the article, write a review in Notepad or Word, and then review it again a day later to check if I've missed anything. The reviews are nearly complete and will be done in the next few hours. Thanks for the encouragement, though. *rolls eyes*. Pursey Talk | Contribs 13:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't you write one at a time? If you chose to review one at a time, editors wouldn't be wondering what the hell is going on at GAC when some random editor says he is reviewing the article - when, in fact, there's no review to be seen three days later for three articles. LuciferMorgan 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As for the theory I figured you'd be reasonable if I contacted you on your talk page, I was wrong there too. Pursey Talk | Contribs 14:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, I did stuff up my first review :) Thanks for your comments. I'm still learning, and I'll continue to do so. I imagine I'll get it all right eventually, most of the time, at least :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 18:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC Reviewer of the Week - w/e 8/9/2007 

message: Why is time article listed twice in Physics and Astronomy categories?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time 

message: I doubt the golden plates nominee will be quick-failed like I think it should, because no one wants a deluge of "Mormon hating!" and "POV!" thrown at them, and the sources that are present are impressive. Sometimes it isn't what is there, but what isn't. It frankly reads to me like a Mormon lesson on the history of the plates. Don't you think that an article about the golden plates that contains no mention of the idea that many find the idea of them totally implausible, if not outright ridiculous, is a violation of blatant POV? If the Bible article can contain significant criticism, why not the golden plates? VanTucky Talk 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read it that way, I'm not sure you understand Mormon doctrine all that well. It is far from a "Mormon lesson on the history of the plates". It covers way more than that. I can think of some criticsm that isn't in there, though, so that should be taken into account. Still I think you're judging it a bit harshly. The assumption thatthis was just written by a bunch of Mormons to tell the "real story" is pretty false, in my view. This is far from a quick-fail. Just put it on hold and express the concern that there isn't enough criticism. Wrad 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said it was a history lesson, not a theological lesson. Besides, I was speaking of my impression of the POV of the article, not actually comparing it to Mormon doctrine. I was speaking rhetorically. And it does use NPOV language for the most part. But when an article goes into a very very detailed recounting of the story without bothering to stop for some counterpoint and proper context, then it reads like a Mormon history lesson. VanTucky Talk 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Controversial articles sometimes do require something special in terms of a thoroughly justified review, typically when they are being failed. If what you describe of the article is accurate, a well-written explanation of your objection should be sufficient. But if nobody wants to touch this one, I could try my hand at it, though that'll have to wait an hour or so probably. Homestarmy 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wrad that the article is relatively NPOV; it deals with its subject in a matter-of-fact way, without commentary, and generally uses phrasing like "the plates were said to have been sealed" (as opposed to "the plates were sealed"). However, I'd also agree with VanTucky that there is no critical appraisal of Smith's claims, and that this should at least be mentioned as it is in similar articles... assuming secondary sources can be found. This is not really a quick-fail issue though, as bar a few MoS problems (eg some of the headings; misplaced ref tags etc) the article looks quite good in other respects. EyeSereneTALK 21:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden plates 

message: I have decided to complete the long-overdue review of Lal Masjid siege today, but I am tempted to fail it based upon the fact that the cassus belli of the incident is disputed (most recent revert was today). The rest of the article is pretty good, but this is a core issue which I feel has disrupted the stability of the article. Thoughts? VanTucky Talk 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lal Masjid, again 

message: Just thought I'd ask about the History section's backlog. There's many old requests for review in there. So if there's no objection, I'll be taking on three of these. I'm currently in the process of reviewing Expo 67 and I'd like to take on 2 more, since I've pretty much worked out that it doesn't matter whether I'm doing one or three, I complete them all at a reasonable pace. Pursey Talk | Contribs 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you for this. While it hasn't been up as long as Expo 67, my nom for Cripple Creek has been languishing on the board for a while, as 101 video game and band noms come and go. I would do some GA reviews myself, if I had the time to get comfortable with the criteria. Scartol · Talk 02:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't mind Pursey, I sorta had my heart set on (read:was just starting to do) Mobutu Sese Seko? VanTucky Talk 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, jump in. I've just taken three. All the ones in North and South American History. Mark it up with the GAReview tag and go nuts. Pursey Talk | Contribs 03:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How dare you! I, dear sir, prefer to go bananas. The nerve of some people... VanTucky Talk 03:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. I care a lot about your feelings. I retract my statement. ;) Pursey Talk | Contribs 03:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calm down, gentlemen, or we'll have to bring in mediation. LaraLove 04:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Being dressed as a French maid does not constitute a super hero! I demand you retract that statement. LaraLove 04:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation needed. Also, pics or it's not true. (Sorry, couldn't resist). I need to go lay down, Wikipedia is making me ill. :D Pursey Talk | Contribs 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Backlog 

message: I was just wondering. 65th Infantry Regiment (United States) was listed as GAC on the 29th of August of 2007. On Septmber 8, User:Sumoeagle179 asked for some issues to be taken care of and they were, see: Talk:65th Infantry Regiment (United States)#Issues.
As of today. I haven't heard from User:Sumoeagle179 nor from any other member of the GA committee, so I was wondering what is going on. Thank you all Tony the Marine 02:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If he put that article on hold without updating the template properly, you can just remove the hold, that's a pretty big timeframe to leave an article in the lurch. But if he just gave a comment about the article, he might of just been trying to give some advice without actually giving a review, some people do that on occasion. Another person will hopefully come along eventually and give a review and decision. Homestarmy 02:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  65th Infantry Regiment (United States) 

message: I have quick-failed the article on Steve Fossett, due to criterion 5 (stability) of the GA criteria. The search for him continues, and he has not been confirmed either dead or alive. Once he is found, whether a live person or a corpse, editing on this article is sure to draw a significant volume of edits. Even looking at the article's current edit history, we can see a lot of recent edits in the past couple of days. So I think it's best to hold off on this, at least until his story gets off the main news media. Dr. Cash 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. LaraLove 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should Larry Craig be quick-failed as well for more or less the same reason? Given that a lot of the details and actions of the recent controversy are still unfolding, the article is not going to be stable as people rush to add in the facts of the case/resignation. Cheers, CP 19:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Steve Fossett]] 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 15th September 2007. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Derek.cashman2. Awadewit3. Dihydrogen Monoxide4. Peripitus5. Noeticsage. Epbr123 11:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a total of 3 reviews (I think) and came 3rd...wow... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 23:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Crazy, I didn't even know they had a GAC reviewer of the week. Is this done every week? -- Noetic Sage 23:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm trying for an average of 2 per day this week. So sure :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm usually doing well to manage two per week (unfortunately I sometimes have to work at work; you'd think they'd be more reasonable :P ). I'll do what I can with the backlog though ;) EyeSereneTALK 10:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think progress is slowly being made. I've gotten stuck in, and I imagine others have as well. For the first time in a while the count for the day was down on the previous days. Only by one, but at least it's some progress. :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 13:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to aim for one a day, but rarely make that.  One every two days is good for me though... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I am in a bit of a slo-mo mode generally because of RL stuff, but yeah, the main problem with this, and also T:DYKT is that it comes down to a small number of ppl to inspect everyone else's work, and usually the DYK backlog comes back again during weekends - usually when ppl are away from their computers. Also there is a bit of a problem there where lots of people nominate their articles a lot but don't really help with peer processing and so forth. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I was going to start doing this anyhow. Perhaps we can get this added to the template(s). Pursey Talk | Contribs 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC Reviewer of the Week - w/e 15/9/2007 

message: There is a Wikiproject logic, shouldn't there be a Logic category for articles?  (Whether logic belongs in Mathematics or in Philosophy is a standard religious issue, and makes it hard to know what category I should put a nomination...  but nobody can argue with it going under Logic.) Disclaimer:  I have no idea how new categories are handled, so I refrained from just trying to add one without checking here first. Nahaj 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some articles about logic are clearly mathematics, some are clearly philosophy. Creating a separate logic category for good articles will lead to a choice between three options instead of two, and I don't think it is a good idea. Geometry guy 20:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have a point...  But if there were a logic category, then articles about logic could go under logic INSTEAD of under philosophy or mathematics.  There would be no need to even consider putting them under the other two categories Nahaj 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject logic exists, should a Logic category exist also? 

message: I suggest that this would be a useful subsection of this list: I wanted to add a long distance footpath to the list of candidates and eventually parked it under "Recreation, Miscellaneous".  It felt more like "Geography" but none of the subdivisions thereof.  Is there a procedure for adding subdivisions of headings in the list?  PamD 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having seen quite a few new category requests on the talk page recently, I'm not sure if this is exactly the best way to go about it. We want to maintain the best consistency between categories on WP:GA and WP:GAC, so adding a new category is a lot more complex than simply creating the new category by doing a new subsection header at WP:GAC - you also need to synch both pages with the bot(s) that keep tabs on both the GA page as well as the GAC backlog. Rather than having nominators being held up by a necessarily bureaucratic process of creating a new category at GAC, I think it would be much better and more efficient to add these articles under the miscellaneous category instead. WikiProject Good Articles would then keep track of the number of articles in each category at the WP:GA page, and adjust the categories (adding new or merging) on a semi-regular basis. Dr. Cash 20:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography, Miscellaneous 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 22nd September 2007. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Derek.cashman2. Pursey3. Noeticsage4. GreenJoe5. Canadian Paul. Epbr123 11:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy cow. Dr Cash must have seriously done a stack of reviews, because I did NINE MILLION(not to scale). Well done Dr Cash :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 11:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact now I'm tempted to make sure I nail it next week ;) I keep coming second! And look out, it's my week off :) Pursey Talk | Contribs 13:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow! Two weeks in a row! Thanks! Fortunately, there have been quite a few science & geography articles to take a crack at,... maybe that trend will keep up,... ;-) Dr. Cash 17:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <irony>Derek, you do realise this isn't about getting some nerdy award don't you?</irony> - good work! The Rambling Man 17:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 22/9/2007 

message: Right now there's currently a discussion here on whether or not there should be citations in the lead. I have no personal preference, although the policy as stated when I reviewed Dungeons & Dragons (album) stated that there should be and I pointed that out in the review. The article is currently on hold for a variety of reasons but, I think that those little things will be cleared up in less than a day, which will probably mean that within 24 hours the only one of my unaddressed points will be references in the lead. I personally don't care which way they do it, and the second-to-last thing I'd want to do is have to fail an otherwise good article because of something silly like this. The last thing that I'd want to do, however, is pass a good article that has a clear (in the eyes of more experienced GA reviewers anyhow) MoS violation. So, as a somewhat-neutral editor, although one who would very much like to pass the aforementioned article once my concerns have been addressed, can an article be passed without citations in the lead? Cheers, CP 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had this problem as well when I reviewed articles. The tendency I'm seeing is that references in the lead are a must for Biographies of living persons. But in terms of other topics, references in the lead are not essential provided that the same point is mentioned in the main body with a reference attached. Although if the point in the lead is a quote, a statement, some kind of statistics and figures, or something negative, then a reference should be there. Oidia (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always seemed to me that references can go in the lead whenever editors feel it is necessary, generally when something controversial is being cited. I don't see what MoS violation that causes. Homestarmy 00:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went and had a skim through several Good Articles on a variety of topics. It appears that most of them have references in the lead. So like Homestarmy said, if something is controversial, debatable, or questionable in the lead, then a reference should be there. Oidia (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My understanding has always been that you only need references in the lead if there is a controversial statement (or you are referencing a quote) because everything in the lead should already be in the main body of the article, and should be referenced there. So generally I don't think references in the lead are necessary, with the exception of controversial material. I can see the point about biographies of living people though; when in doubt you reference for those. - Shudde talk 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There would be no prob with that I don't think. There are articles out there with references in the lead, and sometimes it does avoid arguments. I usually take the view that you can't over reference though ;) - Shudde talk 02:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually don't reference the leads in my GAC's, but in my most recent one, Long hair, I felt a need to cite everything. Everyone seemed to have an opinion on long hair and challenged everything, even though it was already cited later in the article. Wrad 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's anything wrong with having cites in the lead, necessarily. LaraLove 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Of course the lead should sum the article, and the article should already be sourced. But some things need to be in the lead and not necessaryly in the article (say, genre of a movie), and thus need to be cited there.SidiLemine 11:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The genre of a movie shouldn't be cited. That's easily attainable information; unchallengeable. The genre of a band, however, which is not so easily attainable (surprisingly) should be sourced, but in the infobox rather than the lead. LaraLove 11:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in the lead section 

message: This review is not acceptable.  LuckyLouie has been deeply involved in the article, and is biased regarding the subject, being a member of Wikiproject Rational Skepticism.  I would ask that any reviewer of this controversial subject have impeccable credentials of neutrality, and that editors who feel strongly about the paranormal recuse themselves from reviewing. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is nonsense, Martin. You cannot invalidate GA candidate reviewers comments because they are members of WikiProject:Paranormal or Wikiproject:Rational_Skepticism. - LuckyLouie 03:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he can. The purpose of GAC is to have an external editor review the article against criteria, not to have someone who's worked on it extensively do so. This page's header states "Anyone who shows understanding of the criteria and the instructions below can review an article, as long as you are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed" (bold added). LuckyLouie can review the article, but someone else needs to pass/fail it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Martiphi.  Not because of the projects he's involved in, but because he's made a considerable amount of edits.  Judging by the history, he's made at least 20-30 edits since May.  An unbiased reviewer should be found.  That said, LuckyLouie is welcome to make comments, give criticisms, and help out with the review.  He just shouldn't be the final word on it's nomination, in my opinion. Drewcifer 03:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did not mean to imply he is unwelcome as an NPOV editor, or that he shouldn't make comments on the article. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've made only 14 edits to the article all together. Would I be considered a major contributor? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not up on the rules here, but in addition to editing the article you have made numerous edits to the talk page, been heavily involved in the debates, and have expressed strong views on the article.  ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: But I'm not a major contributor to the article itself. I voice my opinions on the talk page but that's about it. Are we looking for someone who has neither edited the article or spent time on the talk page? Wikidudeman (talk) 14:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're looking for a neutral and uninvolved party. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Definitely not kosher. Doesn't really matter whether it's about the paranormal or about washing machines. Someone who's edited the article should not promote it. Protects the integrity of the system. A quick look at the article's edit stats shows that Lucky is one of the top five editors of the article. Wrad 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is really another issue here, and I hesitate to bring it up because it doesn't seem to have backing in policy.  But the article is every bit as controversial as abortion or evolution or gay rights or Scientology whatever.  It needs a truly neutral editor.  I suggest that this stipulation be added to the rules for a GA reviewer. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not yet seen any problems arise due to editors reviewing articles in subject areas that they simply have an opinion about, have you? In this particular case, the reviewer clearly has contributed heavily to this article, he doesn't simply have an opinion about the article's subject. Homestarmy 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it's pretty easy to tell whether an editor judges the article neutrally by what they say in the review. If there is a problem, it can always be brought up here. I think we need to draw a distinction between a non-neutral editor and a non-neutral review. You can have personal opinions about things and still give an article a fair review. Wrad 00:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, absolutely. Wrad 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conflict of interest cases happen now and again at GA/R, and they seem to resolve themselves adequatly. Homestarmy 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My "review" consists of the opinion that the article needs further work and I give specific suggestions for improving it. I do understand that it cannot be counted as an official vote for or against GA status. - LuckyLouie 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it just seemed like you were giving an actual review :/. Is the article still a candidate? If so, I don't think there's much to seriously dispute here. Homestarmy 00:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just a judgement call on whether your review reads neutrally Lucky. Editors who have contributed to an article should not review it, period. GA-status is not something to be conferred on one's own work. VanTucky Talk 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like things are under control. ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EVP 

message: Once upon a time, in the days when WP:GAR was called Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes, this page was known as Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations. Then people decided that using subpages for important processes was a bad idea and the name of this page was changed. Yet almost everything related to this process refers to nominations and nominees, never to candidates. So why is this page now called "Good article candidates" and not Wikipedia:Good article nominations? Well, it nearly was: both options were presented here and after a very little discussion, "candidate" was chosen, apparently for coherence with WP:FAC, though internal consistency was not discussed at all.
I mention this because the inconsistency generates all sorts of errors which waste editors' time. For instance, in , the standard terminology for this process is GAN, and an article which fails it has status FGAN. Most of the templates related to this project use an "N" or "nominee/nomination" instead of a "C" or "candidate". It is very confusing; editors sometimes get it wrong; errors are made; time is wasted; people complain; more time is wasted; etc.
Both User:LaraLove and I think it would save time in the long run if the terminology was consistent. There are obviously two ways to do this: use "candidates" everywhere or "nominations" everywhere. I checked out what changes these choices would require and here they are.
===Option 1: Candidates===
# Move  to  leaving a redirect.
# Reword  and change the name of the category into which candidates are placed (see next point).
# Move :Category:Good article nominees to :Category:Good article candidates (requires an admin, unless it is a cut and paste.)
# Move :Category:Good article nominees currently on hold to :Category:Good article candidates currently on hold and change its category.
# Fix any links to these cats.
# Reword  and change the name of the category it fills as in point 4.
# Replace (preferably) all c.200 transclusions of  by  either using AWB or a bot.
# Reword WP:GAC to reflect the change of name. (This rewording is the reason it is preferable to replace the transclusions in the previous point.)
# Do something with Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA nominees task force.
# Rename ,  and .
# Update  to use FGAC as well as FGAN, and document the GAC terminology only.
===Option 2: Nominations===
# Move this page to Wikipedia:Good article nominations leaving a redirect. 
# Change the title of section 1. 
# Fix the redirects from WP:GAC, WP:GAN etc. 
I don't mind doing the work, but option 2 seems a lot easier for everyone. Any thoughts? Preferences? Geometry guy 21:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that consistency is needed, and option 2 would be best, but maybe it should be called Wikipedia:Good article nominees as this would be more consistent with the template and categories. Epbr123 22:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I agree with Epbr. T Rex | talk 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good article nominees works for me. LaraLove 01:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So are we planning to keep the GA Review name or should that be changed to Good Article Disputes as well? --Nehrams2020 04:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus at the moment appears to be to change the name to Good article reassessment. As for nominees/nominations, I prefer "nominations" for several reasons: (i) "nominee" is rather fanciful; (ii) "nominee" refers just to the nominated article, whereas "nomination" refers to the whole process; (iii) "nominee" isn't great English anyway, because a nominee is supposed to be a person, not an object. Anyway, it is not a big deal. Geometry guy 10:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I like this 'good article reassessment' idea,... ;-) Dr. Cash 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Either way, I don't see how it really matters. As for the inconsistency between FAC and GAN, I'd like to repeat what I've said many times before when this has been raised. We are two separate projects and it is more important to have consistency within our own project than to attempt to be consistent with another. Even if our acronyms don't match that of the Featured Article process, I think we'll be okay. LaraLove 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Option 2 looks good to me (and being a pedant I'd have to agree with Gguy re nominee/nomination). When I first joined I was always mixing up GAR with GAC anyway (since at GAC we review articles for Good status... and GAR is a re-review). IMO the name change there is more overdue ;) EyeSereneTALK 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Option 2 looks good to me as well, but I think Geometry has good points concerning "nominee" vs. "nominations". Homestarmy 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The OED definitions for nominations and nominees can be found at User talk:Epbr123#Nominally nomination. As for WP:GAR, the consensus seemed to me to be so overwhelming (the discussion began in August, the !vote a couple of weeks ago) that I went ahead and did the move. It took an hour. The GAC -> GAN move should be easier, although I spotted that there are a few subpages which would need moving too. Meanwhile, I tweaked the GAN wording, as there appears to be a growing consensus here too. Geometry guy 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nehrams2020 may be willing to do it as GA's newest admin. LaraLove 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved the page to Wikipedia:Good article nominations per request. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just a quick note that I've updated User:StatisticianBot to reflect the page changes. The report pages have been moved too, to match the rest of the page changes, and can now be found at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report or WP:GAN/R, although the old pages persist as redirects, of course. If anyone notices any hiccups due to the page transfer, let me know so that I can fix it. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A rose by any other name 

message: # Move this page to Wikipedia:Good article nominations leaving a redirect. 
# Change the title of section 1. 
# Fix the redirects from WP:GAC, WP:GAN etc. 
I don't mind doing the work, but option 2 seems a lot easier for everyone. Any thoughts? Preferences? Geometry guy 21:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that consistency is needed, and option 2 would be best, but maybe it should be called Wikipedia:Good article nominees as this would be more consistent with the template and categories. Epbr123 22:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I agree with Epbr. T Rex | talk 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good article nominees works for me. LaraLove 01:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So are we planning to keep the GA Review name or should that be changed to Good Article Disputes as well? --Nehrams2020 04:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus at the moment appears to be to change the name to Good article reassessment. As for nominees/nominations, I prefer "nominations" for several reasons: (i) "nominee" is rather fanciful; (ii) "nominee" refers just to the nominated article, whereas "nomination" refers to the whole process; (iii) "nominee" isn't great English anyway, because a nominee is supposed to be a person, not an object. Anyway, it is not a big deal. Geometry guy 10:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I like this 'good article reassessment' idea,... ;-) Dr. Cash 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Either way, I don't see how it really matters. As for the inconsistency between FAC and GAN, I'd like to repeat what I've said many times before when this has been raised. We are two separate projects and it is more important to have consistency within our own project than to attempt to be consistent with another. Even if our acronyms don't match that of the Featured Article process, I think we'll be okay. LaraLove 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Option 2 looks good to me (and being a pedant I'd have to agree with Gguy re nominee/nomination). When I first joined I was always mixing up GAR with GAC anyway (since at GAC we review articles for Good status... and GAR is a re-review). IMO the name change there is more overdue ;) EyeSereneTALK 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Option 2 looks good to me as well, but I think Geometry has good points concerning "nominee" vs. "nominations". Homestarmy 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The OED definitions for nominations and nominees can be found at User talk:Epbr123#Nominally nomination. As for WP:GAR, the consensus seemed to me to be so overwhelming (the discussion began in August, the !vote a couple of weeks ago) that I went ahead and did the move. It took an hour. The GAC -> GAN move should be easier, although I spotted that there are a few subpages which would need moving too. Meanwhile, I tweaked the GAN wording, as there appears to be a growing consensus here too. Geometry guy 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nehrams2020 may be willing to do it as GA's newest admin. LaraLove 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I moved the page to Wikipedia:Good article nominations per request. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just a quick note that I've updated User:StatisticianBot to reflect the page changes. The report pages have been moved too, to match the rest of the page changes, and can now be found at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report or WP:GAN/R, although the old pages persist as redirects, of course. If anyone notices any hiccups due to the page transfer, let me know so that I can fix it. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Option 2: Nominations