Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 5

message: Given the current backlog of articles I suggest that the use of On Hold be discouraged or resticted to a smaller time frame say 48hrs, as its keeping the lists longer than necessary and realistically if there are issues with an article then fail it or fix them during the review. Gnangarra 05:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on "HOLD" 

message: is given as a subsection under both Everyday Life and Social Sciences--- which is it? --plange 23:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as war is (sadly) becoming part of everyday life in many parts of the world, I would still put it under social sciences. --NoahElhardt 23:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I've deleted it from Everyday Life based on the above discussion --plange 01:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War 

message: I was a bit curious myself when I read that in the rules, how long had we had that rule? I might be forgetting some conversation from a really long time ago.... Homestarmy 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know for how long but I didn't know about it either. Maybe we ought to drop a line somewhere when these changes are made so that we don't loose track of what is asked of nominators & reviewers. Lincher 12:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Registered user thing

message: A couple of weeks ago, someone (ironically, an IP user) altered the "How to nominate a page" section to say that only registered users can nominate articles. While that might help keep the nonsense to a lower level, it certainly wasn't discussed or, in fact, even mentioned in the edit summary. It just happened, and I didn't notice (did anyone?) until Tarret removed a few just now. Here's the diff:.
Anyway, I've returned the wording to the way it's always been and replaced the nominations. I don't see any discussion about it and, much as I hate to say it, anons can do pretty much anything on Wikipedia. If they can nominate FACs, they can certainly nominate GAs. Kafziel 00:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Eluchil404. pschemp | talk 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro wording 

message: I find it ironic that we've been talking about articles being improperly promoted and folks not taking the GA tag seriously and now, for demonstration purposes, an anon user has been adding the GA tag to an article that was recently nominated for speedy deletion. Both myself and another editor have been reverting the tag and I exhorted the user to take the article through the proper GA process. Might be worthwhile for others to keep an eye on it. Agne 16:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ironically, an example 

message: As we now have the new WIAGA more or less firmly in place, I decided to start re-reviewing current GAs per the discussion above, and using User:Lincher/GA as a starting point. I have reviewed two articles by now, Richard Branson (though it was actually identified for deletion already by Lincher) and Spice trade - both of them clearly failed to comply with the standards, unfortunately. I guess somebody might have a look at those reviews (see talk pages obviously) and perhaps comment on them. I also encourage everybody to join the process on User:Lincher/GA (just choose an article and review, as simple as that!), so that we could have the list trimmed down to really Good Articles ;) ASAP! Bravada, talk - 00:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have delisted 5 just now for various reasons and they were not just for changes in the rules. In fact they were mostly due to poor reviewing or poor implementation of the process.  Homestarmy has also found a lot of "Poor Articles" in our Good Articles list. See the proposal in the GA talk page. RelHistBuff 12:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing something retro active is not a good idea. I been watching the discussion and I agree with the new rules, but to delist someone because they don't follow the current new rules is not a good idea. I think it should be only for new GA candidates, not currently marked ones. Shane (talk/contrib) 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But how could that be maintained? We would have to keep track of the old standards (this conformed to the Jan 2005 standard, that with the March 2006 standard, and that with the June 2006 standard,...). RelHistBuff 12:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right. This is a great idea! Maybe if we all get together we can tighten the standards and and streamline the delisting process enough to make this whole project completely pointless! Actually, maybe it is already; as of now, there are only 327 more Good Articles than Featured Articles. A whopping 327 out of 1,391,736. Makes it kind of difficult to see the value of the project as a less formal alternative to FA when both of them consist of about .1% of articles. But, no, this is a really wonderful idea. Really. Kafziel 12:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: To RelHistBuff: Just look at the date that the GA articles were added to the queue. Only do the articles that were added after the new adopted rules. Shane (talk/contrib) 13:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood that. But in time, you will then have two different sets of articles conforming to two different standards. So let's say when an older article is reviewed again, do we check to see if it conforms to the older standard? RelHistBuff 13:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, why does it need to be reviewed again? How about just busying yourself with the other 1,390,295 articles? Delisting articles does nothing to improve morale and it certainly doesn't help our backlog of pending requests. This isn't Featured Articles, so we don't need a Featured Article Removal process. Hold the new requests to the new standards, and leave the rest alone. Kafziel 13:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no. This is pretty pointless - many articles were passed when the rules were not tight enough and THAT is why we have to review them all. The same happens with FA - they are periodically reviewed for compliance with the CURRENT rules, starting from the OLDEST ones, and yes, the ones that were rightfully promoted but fail to meet the current guidelines ARE delisted. The only thing I have reservations about is failing JUST for the lack of inline citations - we should give editors a notice and a week or so to add some, preferably mentioning what actually should be referenced. Bravada, talk - 13:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am also careful to note other problems and I am also reluctant to delist due the lack on inline citations only. By the way, in response to Kafziel, I have promoted, failed, delisted, and "on-hold"ed articles plus I have given advice and content to every single article where I have done any actions. For several I have shared advice directly to the main editor of the article. So what's the problem? RelHistBuff 13:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem at all. Let's be just like Featured Articles in every way. In fact, let's start using a panel of editors to review each article. We're doing it anyway (one editor passes an article, four others second-guess him and delist it) so we might as well just debate each one together, for the sake of expediency. And let's make sure we have really stringent standards for every facet of every article with no exceptions. And let's have a thorough process for delisting articles that were passed by old standards but no longer make the grade, and we can have project editors who do very little but work on that. Have a blast, guys. I'm done with this. Kafziel 13:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fantastic idea, but the system already exists. It's called Featured Articles. --kingboyk 15:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yeah. That was my point. Kafziel 15:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also re-review shouldn't be an issue, even if we use new criteria. Criteria changes and so articles should be reassessed. The nature of how GA works says that one reviewer may pass it, but another may delist it. --plange 16:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make it clear - I do not and will not use the old criteria. WIAGA reads "What is a Good Article?". If an article does not comply with WIAGA, it is not a GA, as simple as that. WIAGA changes over time just like many things in WP and we have to adjust to that. That said, continuing this discussion is pointless. Can we just go on and, like, review the articles? Bravada, talk - 16:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with this. Maintaining the standards of the project is just as important as passing new articles. Cedars 01:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA re-review 

message: The continual changing of criteria is causing more problems than its addressing. GA needs it criteria to be stable, how can you pass an article today.  Suggest that you either accept the current concensus or stop reviewing articles until an agreed criteria is published.  Also I suggest that the review of all the current articles be abandoned for now, there is a substancial backlog. Gnangarra 14:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (unable to reply due to continuous edit conflicts) I fail to see why there is a problem. The criteria are either what they have been for months, or something more strict introduced yesterday. Are there many articles that would pass under the old wording, but not now? Gimmetrow 15:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again - I, for one, provide a comprehensive review to all articles, failed or promoted, as I believe it helps willing editors offset all problems and resubmit the article as GAN with a very high chance of passing (and also reduces the number of interations, sparing reviewers' and editors' time). Now, I cannot review it according to criterion 2b, given its instability, and then it would be a rather nasty surprise for an editor to find out that his/her article got failed again because a criteron that changed in the meantime. Not to mention there actually ARE articles that could be failed for that - I am mainly reassessing old GAs now, but I cannot imagine passing any article before the 2b criterion is fixed again. Bravada, talk - 15:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmmkay, so you don't even oppose the change you reverted, so what's the point? Bravada, talk - 15:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that the new wording rules out articles such as semantic holism, eliminative materialism, and Bertrand Russell. If they were put up for GA under the proposed wording, they would be immediately rejected for lack of inline citations. Surely at least one or two of them are sufficiently well-written to be considered "good articles". Gimmetrow 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the reassessment talk page, I suggested to leave a notice on a talk page if the review is positive but the article is only missing citations, preferably indicating what fragments should be referenced, and give the editors a week to fix that. I don't want to instantly fail articles who miss inline citations, because it is a new requirement. I haven't reviewed any of the three mentioned, though, so I can't say whether they are OK, though. Bravada, talk - 19:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Consensus was obtained (see In a nutshell section). Unfortunately there has been a single-handed revert. Again, I would ask that the criterion go back to the consensus decision so that work may proceed. If anyone would like to challenge the decision, then it should be discussed here first and another consensus reached. RelHistBuff 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur --plange 15:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Gimmetrow: However, I repeat again. Consensus on the current wording was reached. We moved forward. There may be other issues to consider. Going back to previous version as you have done is creating problems. And as I mentioned above, I believe there is a misunderstanding of the FA requirement. I was confused by it as well until I saw a clarification about it on the FAC talk page. So could you please go back to the consensus decision? We can discuss your points here. RelHistBuff 15:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As I have requested several times that WIAGA go back to consensus version and there has been no response, I have done this myself. Edit wars in articles is bad enough. But an edit war in standards is deadly. I hope we can continue to discuss the problematic issues civilly. RelHistBuff 15:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (To Gimmetrow) : Take a look at this discussion Pass criterion on GAC where consensus was reached on leaving comments on talk pages when reviewing but if you read carefully you will see that it were the newly arrived reviewers that weren't doing it because we were all doing it pretty much at that time and we the settled to add a line in the Pass guideline of the GAC page. Lincher 16:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is this addressed to me? I fail to see the relevance. 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is addressed to you for your edit here   which in my view is just a way to divert and get comments pass through the discussion without people paying attention to what you write. Please follow the thread when adding comments and please try to add comments to talk pages where things are changing not below the radar where you will be able to, later, bring back your objection into the discussion. The article about the grid thing for your information was not up to GA standards before and it isn't now as it reads like an ad, is not well referenced (proper citations) or because there is trivia. Lincher 17:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The link to that discussion was given in the section above as something to see, so I did. The proposal was the remove all GAs if there were no evidence of process. An example was given, and it was to be examined purely on its lack of process for promotion to GA, not quality. Well, the example given DID follow process, and it troubles me that people would consider demoting articles without sufficiently looking into their history. Now your statement, citing a discussion from July 2006, is irrelevant to a GA passed in March 2006. I am also rather troubled by your insinuations which seem to me contrary to WP:AGF. Gimmetrow 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: the concern with this is you change the rules/criteria then reassess only to tell editors that its no longer GA because we decided to change the rules. thats like saying to a sports competitor that the rule for this game are now this and that previous winners are longer recognised unless they also adherred to these new rules. Gnangarra 02:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sports analogy is a faulty comparison. GA is a standard of quality acheivement and by its nature fluid. You can also view it as a "club" of sort where the membership dues each year is the price of the level of quality in the article. That price will increase from time to time. (like college tuition) You have the choice to either pay that higher price or "drop out". Agne 04:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: We do really need to stop edit warring over this, i've been notifying GA's which have no inline citations but do have references to try and convert their stuff of inline, but if people won't stop switching things back and forth, I dunno what we'll ever be able to do about those kind of articles. Homestarmy 02:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This what I'm trying to highlight is that the frequency of changes to the criteria has reach a point where articles in the backlog where nominated under one set of criteria and are now being assess under different set of criteria, yet this new criteria still has it opponents that are reverting to previous versions of the criteria. If GA community of reviewers cant get come to some form of consensus and stabilise the criteria how can they expect editors to address and achieve the criteria. How can the wider wikipedia community accept GA as a standard if the GA community cant decide what is standards are. I'll again reitterate that the process of reviewing should stop until the criteria is stabilised. GA should also recognise that articles have previously achieved GA under a different criteria and instead of just removing(failing) the article GA reviewers should take some ownership in bringing these upto the new standards, with the obvious realisation that if the main editors of the article arent interested in further developing then withdraw GA. Have a look at the way FA assess articles that no longer comply to the criteria they first try to fixed the issues. Gnangarra 05:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIAGA - changes - consensus or stop reviewing 

message: Gimmetrow raised an issue concerning WP:WIAFA. As I understand it, the problem is the clause "where appropriate". In a talk page (I will look for it), it seems the clause means that an inline citation should be placed where there should be one. It does not mean to put them in an appropriate article. Inline citations are still required. I will try to seek more clarifications, but perhaps there are people out there who know the FA situation better? RelHistBuff 15:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You proposed new criteria wording at 07:20 18 September, and implemented it 09:58 18 September. This had been previously attempted on 14 September and reverted with "no consensus for this change". Discussion of the WIAFA criteria issue can be found here. Gimmetrow 17:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And so when you apply theory and it doesn't work then you revert to experimental practises and, on FAC, you request inline citations when appropriate or, as an editor, you add citations before sending it to either GAC or FAC. I guess we ask the same in the end : no NOR, NPOV, V inclining statements in wikipedia articles and to prevent any of these, citations are the only way to go. Lincher 17:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And since we aren't FA, and yet work well, there is no reason to add bureacracy to the system. Making things more complicated will do nothing but discourage people from review the huge backlog of articles that are waiting.  Not trusting the reviewers to do their job is extremely elitist and anti wiki. pschemp | talk 02:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bureaucrats and process are anti wiki? Thanks for letting me know. Gimmetrow 11:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA criterion

message: Partially in reference to what Gimmetrow stated above, I would like to propose setting a standard for the GA review. There is the Template:FGAN, for one, though I found it more appropriate and useful to quote the actual criteria and comment on each point of WIAGA - see examples at Talk:Louvre#GA review and Talk:Sunol Water Temple#GA review. This lets the readers find out easily what the criteria actually are (or were at the time of the review) and also makes one stick to the actual critetion rather than a "general concept" of or feeling about e.g. "well written" (I hope I do stick!) What do you think of those? I guess if the latter review format is found useful, we might use a page with a boilerplate text (in Wikicode) to be simply copy/pasted and filled with reviewer's comments.
Secondly, at present GAC only requires a written review (or simply a comment) when the article is failed (and also GA/R requires one when delisting), but none is requested for promoting the article! This makes for a rather strange situation where it is easier to pass than to fail a GA, which is not quite what we want if we want to up the standards (or, actually, make them abided by in practice). I believe requiring a review on the compliance with all WIAGA criteria will fend off careless/bad faith "promoters", who would neglect the WIAGA. Of course this adds a bit of bureaucracy to the process, but I found that, if you are actually reading the article and actively considering all the criteria, putting it all down is not that time-consuming and makes making final decisions easier on borderline cases. Again, what do you think about that? Bravada, talk - 01:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the template idea, but honestly, when people these days actually review the articles, i've taken a look at some of them, and most of the articles being passed currently actually are up to GA standards mostly in my opinion, so there aren't really that many bad reviews right now. Homestarmy 01:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think requiring a review will make this process more tedious and less people will participate. There is already a huge backlog of articles that need to be looked at, we don't need to add anything that makes that process more complicated. If it is passed, it has obviously met the criteria. There is no need to complicate a system that is working.pschemp | talk 02:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps outright abuses are infrequent, but I have just delisted a recently promoted article (I mean one listed a few hours before now), as I found it seriously deficient in many areas. The reviewer apparently was a bit too brief in his review and did not analyze the article for compliance with all criteria deep enough. Another reviewer passed an article for "it's use of inline citations, good prose and sound samples" (while those are nice qualities, sound samples are pretty irrelevant here, and the rest, while important, is not enough). Most of the examples I have given a brief look too are quite "borderline" cases - I would have at least put them on hold. And, well, there will still be examples of really bad decisions. When you review the article really thoroughly, putting your conclusions in writing really isn't too much of a toil, and it even helps you organize your thoughts. Bravada, talk - 02:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forcing people to work the way you like to work is unproductive and elitist. You are free to work in a complicated mannar if you like, but requiring it of others is silly. Why are you delisting articles anyway? You should be focusing on getting the backlog of articles that are current reviewed, then go back and re-review. None of the articles currently listed as GAs are so horrible that they will do harm if they are left while the current and main focus of this project is worked on.  Your obsession with the quality of old GAs is unproductive and in no way helps to get the current list reviewed. Note I'm not saying you should never re-review, but that we should work on the huge and current backlog first. pschemp | talk 02:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The collective worth of a "GA acheivement" is dependent on the quality of the articles it is attached to. If sub-standard articles are listed as being "Good Articles" then what's the point in actually taking the time and effort to craft a Good article if any ole thing can pass? Hence the de-listing and review process is neccessary in order to maintain the standards and integrity of the GA process. Yes, there is a backlog which we need to work through and I encourage my fellow editors to split their time between the review and the current candidates but we will always have new candidates cropping up and we shouldn't stop the review just because of that. As for the template, I am in favor of it. It is considered a GA review after all. No one is beaucrating how much time/effort/detail you need to put into review but at least requiring that all criteria be posted and accounted for will be  of value in at least making the review (and editors) mindful of what the criteria is. Agne 03:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for saying that Agne, do I need to add more? Perhaps that the criteria in their present form are unlikely to significantly change, as making them any more demanding would be getting too close to FA, while relaxing them would seem a bit of "pulling back and forth". So I think we might have reached the fairly stable set of criteria, and it would be good to go back and browse through the current list GAs, some of which were nominated when one could just slap the tag on the article he/she liked, to make sure the list is meaningful in any way. And, well, there are pretty horrible examples, and they don't serve anybody well, as an editor might see that this or that article has a GA tag and later be surprised an article he/she nominated fell through although it is not any worse. Bravada, talk - 10:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add one more comment on yours, when reviewing articles, people will tend, like me, to look at other articles in the same field in order to see if the article is broad enough. Well, nominators will do this too and, after comparison, if they find that their article is as good as our worst accepted GA then it wont meet the criteria but will be accepted anyway because one non-GA article slipped through the cracks. If we allow comparisons because it is not a FA-like process then we ask for an appropriate level of quality. Lincher 11:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review standard 

message: The John Floyd (Virginia politician) article is 36kb.  It meets every other requirement for GA promotion.  Should I promote it to GA or not?  --Tjss(Talk) 20:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would. It is very well written and I agree that it passes the criteria. Excess length is not really a failing mark for Good Article status. Agne 20:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I promoted it. --Tjss(Talk) 21:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Floyd length problem 

message: Well, I thought my earlier comments had gotten things back on track, but I wandered off to, God forbid, write an article and look what happens. I think we are making straw man arguments here. As a general principle, this is how I interpret User:Walkerma's comments. Please tell me what you think of this:
:Early in an article on an established (and possibly scientific or mathematical) subject it suffices to make an inline reference to one or two well known and respected works about the subject. Then, for commonplace facts that are easy to locate in these works (and in other works), inline references can be omitted. This makes articles easier to read and does not hamper verifiability. However, for surprising statements or statements for which it would be helpful or necessary to refer to another work, an inline reference is required.
In addition, I would add, although it doesn't have much bearing on Good Articles:
:For stubs and short articles based entirely on one or two sources, it may be preferable to have only a brief "References" section rather than using footnotes.
Although this isn't succinct enough to be a criterion, I would like to see if people agree on this (the first statement, not my addition) as a matter of principle. I have a feeling that a lot of us can find agreement on this. I've been going through some of the articles with cite tags, and aside from the edit to Special Relativity I mentioned above, many of them seem quite reasonable – say, many of those User:Agne27 added to Hubble's Law, some of those on Redshift, etc... So I don't think things are as bad as people are making them out to be above. Physicists and mathematicians are trained to do proper referencing, and much as you might think we're trying to weasel out of it, we're not. Likewise, as some of the Good Article people have mentioned, you're reasonable people and no article has been removed for failure to provide a reference for a statement that seems trivial. –Joke 02:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talking past one another 

message: In my opinion, FWIW, making exceptions or trying to define when to cite or not in science/technical articles will not be workable. Anyone who has worked in standardisation knows that what works is simplicity (the KISS principle). A complex standard is doomed to failure.
The real problem is not the editorial standard. The problem is fear among some physics authors that some crazy "reviewer/editor" will come along and slap fact tags all over the place or cry out for purportedly unneeded inline cites. I'm sorry to tell them, but even if GA were to disappear all together, those crazy people will still be around, messing around with your articles. That's a basic nature of wiki. Another problem is that not enough credit is given by these physics authors that an experienced GA reviewer will work properly and in good faith. And if some reviewer is not working properly, these physics authors do not recognize that the GA/R process is really there to help them out.
I have written physics papers in research journals and there has always been interplay between me as author and the editor/reviewer. And often I found some of his/her suggestions a bit bothersome. But I learned that it isn't just my opinion that counts. I always respected his/her professionalism just as much as he/she respected me. So if there is a discussion in the article's talk page between a GA reviewer and a physics author, then with the attitude of respect for each other a solution will always be found. I support the original proposal that is basically the same as the FA criterion. RelHistBuff 07:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logic of the above argument is confusing. The concerns expressed by science/math writers are supposed to be ignored because of the "basic nature of wiki"? Well, the basic nature of wiki is also such that people who watch articles and edit them carefully have the right to challenge the insistence of an "experienced GA reviewer" who will rely on criteria that science/math writers can influence. Consensus is the only way a wiki works and if the consensus is that the in-line citation demand is not clear enough then it isn't clear enough. --ScienceApologist 12:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed the point. My comment is that it is useless to make a complex editorial standard with exceptions for this and that. Just talk it out with the reviewer on the talk page (what to cite, what not, etc.). The GA project members will be civil and deal with whatever objections you may have. I did the same with my physics papers, why can't you do it with your articles? RelHistBuff 13:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for discussion and minimizing editorial standards. So let's get rid of the insulting in-line reference criterion completely. Reviewers and editors can then apply suggestions on a case-by-case basis. --ScienceApologist 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but all magazines, newspapers, books, encyclopedias, and research journals have editorial standards and rules. As an author, I managed to deal with them, whether for physics or computing journals, magazine articles, Ph.D theses, or Wiki articles. Most had far tougher requirements than what we are talking about now. An inline citation is a high school paper requirement. So it should be no problem for anyone contributing here. RelHistBuff 19:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's exactly because inline citations are a high school paper requirement that we are objecting. High school papers are amateurish and providing a citation to every sentence is amateurish. Citing common knowledge facts is a practice which should be discouraged. When facts can be found in thousands of sources, it doesn't make sense to inline cite this fact with reference to a single source chosen from those thousands. This is a tacit endorsement of that source and is unacceptable practice in most editorial standards I've come across. --ScienceApologist 20:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inline citations were required for all that I wrote (well, excluding the magazine article). It is obviously not amateurish. And no one said every sentence! Don't know why you keep repeating that over and over here. If it is required (where appropriate) for even such a low as a high school paper than surely Wikipedia articles can provide it. RelHistBuff 21:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: KISS principle

message: A slight modification of Joke's proposal:
Count Iblis 14:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, why do you think your insurance contract can't be made simpler?  :)  In this case we need three things. First of all we need to have guidlines when to cite things. Then we need to have guidlimes about how to resolve disputes. We also need to mention who has the burden of proof.Count Iblis 14:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because my insurance company knows that the contract is not "anyone can edit" :-). Answering your question (1). the guideline is in WP:CITE and we don't have to re-iterate in WP:WIAGA, (2). A place to resolve disputes is in the talk page or go to WP:GA/R and (3). Anyone who contribute in WP has the burden. Last word is please see WP:KISS on how to make a guideline/policy. — Indon (reply) — 14:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current guidlines are ambiguous... Count Iblis 22:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean at WP:CITE, you need to seek clarification there rather than here, IMO. --plange 22:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objective criteria for inline reference  

message: it seems to me that there is a problem with the GA process many times bigger than the inline citation criterion.. the problem is how easy it is for an article that doesn't satisfy the criteria to slip through the process and be listed as a GA. it means that a large part of the wikipedia community doesn't respect the GA tag as "meaning anything". the only way the tag will mean anything is if there is more people and more time involved in the review process. i believe there are ways of doing this without causing too much extra work for reviewers.
an idea i had in that direction was that the initial reviewer isn't allowed to pass or fail the article immediately, but the passing or failing decision (perhaps on subpages, like at FAC) has to stand for a certain amount of time (3 days, say).. if at the end no one disagrees with the review (or, in any case, a consensus has been reached about the article), then it is passed or failed accordingly. 
in any case, something needs to be changed so that there is a feeling of legitimacy, and even consensus, in the process.. then GAs can win the respect of the entire community (those FA people seem to really look down their noses at GAs at the moment.. which really shouldn't be the case). Mlm42 15:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct about the ease of articles to slip through the cracks, however, we've been sweeping the list more lately and catching several people before they could sneak in articles onto the list. The problem should correct itself in time. I'm somewhat concerned, however, that your idea will delay things a bit too much, and make reviews harder to keep track of, unless more bureaocracy is introduced, which isn't what GA was supposed to be about.Homestarmy 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: mm.. perhaps that's the problem though; it may not be possible to win the respect of the community with statements like "The system is unbureaucratic: everyone can nominate good articles, and anyone who has not significantly contributed to an article can review it.".. but if you don't want everyone's respect, then maybe that's not a problem.. Mlm42 16:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why a system has to be bureaucratic to garner recognition. Homestarmy 18:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to counter the easiness of listing an article of GA, we made it just as easy to delist it, and, provided there are enough people on "recent listings" patrol, it is quite unlikely that an unexplicably unsuitable article would slip through. We still have to reassess the existing GAs though, but the current debacle concerning some people's loathing of the enormous effort needed to create a few inline citations brought the reassessment process to an effective standstill... Bravada, talk - 20:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: but as it is, there's no feeling of 'consensus' in the process.. a user here tags an article as a GA, and user there untags it.. it seems a bit chaotic. Mlm42 10:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it seems to you, but the process is clear - there are criteria an article has to comply with (even though some users try to continually disrupt the process by questioning the criteria), and if the article does comply with them, a user has to state that in his/her review and may promote the article. If, however, another user finds that the article does not meet the criteria, he/she may delist it, also stating in his/her review what criteria the article failed to comply with. This can happen not only due to some improper nominations having taken place, but also due to changes to the criteria or the article itself. Bravada, talk - 11:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't want to make this a sore point, but that's the process that i mean seems chaotic.. sporatic users listing or delisting articles according to a set of rules or criteria. the 'process' is only one step removed from someone plucking an article and instantly granting it GA status (that is, one person nominates it, and another grants it status).. and my point is, that 'process' doesn't feel like it's gathered consensus.. which is why many contributers don't put much value on the GA tag. Mlm42 21:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: okay, fair enough; i hadn't realised that 'recently added' list was automatically updated.. that's pretty handy. but yeah, the problem i've been worried about is the perception of the GA process and not neccessarily the process itself.. but i suppose these things take time. Mlm42 07:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  changing the review process 

message: Since the heart of the matter seems to be the application of WP:CITE in relation to WP:V, the discussion has moved there towards trying to find a consensus compromise that we can all live with and help produce a better encyclopedia with. Working together to get something worthwhile accomplished with this guideline will make all these headaches and frustrations not be in vain. I do think there is room for compromise between what the GA team would like to see for readibility and verification and what the Science editors would like for ease of consistency and professionalism. I invite the editors who have been taking part in these discussions across several pages to lay things to rest here and move over to WP:CITE's talk page so that we can garner consensus there. There is not much that can be accomplished here before things are settled with the guideline. Agne 16:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working towards a consensus compromise on [[WP:CITE]] 

message: I would like this article to be completly reviewed and an explannation given with detailed reasons in the talk page of this article if it does not meet the criteria for 'good article' so that it can be improved by it's contributors. Wikidudeman 22:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should consider using WP:PR and WP:SPR. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was failed earlier this month but no reasons were given on the talk page and the reviewer did not give any feedback or suggestions for improvemnt. TimVickers 02:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is correct. I nominated this article and then it was removed without any explanation for it's being removed. Tim and I were working on the article to meet the criteria of 'good article' and then it was suddenly removed without feedback. Please provide feedback if you do not believe it should stay on the list.Wikidudeman 02:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was improperly delisted, you can just put it back to where it was on the nom page. (Just say that you're restoring it in the edit summary so people don't think your cutting in the line though heh.) Homestarmy 00:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anabolic steroid]]

message: An idea I am debuting today: a list and quarterly target for bringing an article to FA standard. I realize I've denigrated GA here before, but it occurred to me this might be a good bridge for newer editors who work on this process to try their hand at an FA. Add to the list and see if you can get an article to FA standard by year's end. Marskell 16:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:1 featured article per quarter]] 

message: This article was promoted from a stub (as rated by yours truly) to GA status by an editor who added a lot of information to this article, but I can't find any evidence that it was reviewed for this status. I'm not convinced that this was done without any attempt to prove its quality -- especially as this editor's contributions have been only to this article. -- llywrch 01:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't appear to be a valid review to me either, did he actually try to list it on the main GA page? You can change it to a different rating if you want. Homestarmy 02:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is [[Oromo Liberation Front]] a GA? 

message: There are tiny articles that will never grow but they will probably get hit on by vandalism and since nobody watches them, then WP will loose credibility for that. Is there a way we can incorporate those into the GA process or to refer them to others who can 1)protect or 2)rate these articles. Lincher 16:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it would seem to me there should be a totally separate project for that, those types of articles seem pretty far from the scope of GA :/. Homestarmy 16:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you mean but these articles are the less watched one and I don't know where they are taken care of. Lincher 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the best people to protect and rate articles like these would be people involved in a Wikipedia project that the articles happen to fall under. Of course, if no such project exists, it does seem likely that they would fall through the cracks... MLilburne 18:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly what I though, and so I refered to WP:COUNCIL for help on such an issue. In the meantime they will stay in my watchlist which is getting so big and tough to manage. Lincher 18:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[USS Sculpin (SS-494)]] and alike 

message: Hi,
I'm a fairly active reviewer, and I've noticed that several unregistered users (i.e. IPs) have nominated articles for good article status. My main concern is that the reviewer cannot be entirely certain that they are talking to the same editor who nominated the article and IP users are often unresponsive, slowing down the process.
My recommendation is that only registered users should be able to nominate an article for good article status. What do you think? CloudNine 14:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may not have contributed here but I can definitely see where you are coming from. This would be a good idea, though there should definitely not be any edit count or minimum time registered needed. My IP changes each time I turn on the computer so it would be horrible trying to reply to me personally if I didn't have an account. James086 Talk | Contribs 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unregistered users and nominating GAs 

message: There are several articles which are currently counted by projects as being Good article quality or better which have never been formally submitted for good article review. The article above is probably one of the clearest examples of problems which can arise from this. One group counts it one grade lower than good article, another group one grade higher than good article. They can't both be right. Would it make sense to have all articles which want to be considered for FA status in the future, or which have been rejected for FA status, candidates for GA status or not?  Thank you in advance for your responses. Badbilltucker 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the groups, those classifications are often done even more arbitrarily than the GA system, and there's just so many of them, they all probably can't be updated very quickly. But on older GA's, generally, as people find articles which are no longer compliant they can be delisted immedietly (with a note on the talk page explaining why of course), but there's plenty of old articles which I really think are GA's, several of the train articles probably still qualify. Homestarmy 01:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: On this article specifically though, although it has a relatively small-ish amount of internal citations, they are there, and there is a rather extensive list of other works as references. Of course, like Aristotle used to be, alot of those might not be actual references at all, but I don't think i'd be so quick to delist Abe. Homestarmy 01:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the other question, do you think it would be a good idea to formally request that any article which failed Featured article narrowly, or wants to work its way up to featured article, meet the good article guidelines or not? Personally, I would think yes, although that might kind of overload the good article reviewers. Badbilltucker 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about that, because even though some people are starting to bring up the issue that the GA criteria are getting a bit close to the FA criteria, GA's still aren't necessarily supposed to be as good as FA's, so if an article barely fails FA, I don't think thats a great indication as to whether it is a GA or not. Homestarmy 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Abraham Lincoln]] 

message: Aren't articles supposed to be on hold for 7 days only? There are currently several that have been on hold for weeks. Just how long are they allowed to be on hold? If the person putting them on hold doesn't come back by the end time, can anyone clear the article off the list? Rlevse 17:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they haven't been fixed, anyone can remove them. Homestarmy 18:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On hold

message: After reviewing this article, I do not believe it meets the criteria, as it seems to lack NPOV, difficult to read, too long, and is haphazertly put together, not to metion that it seems to have a large amount of extra information that is not directly related to the article.Honeymane 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brassiere]] 

message: Is there a reason you have to be registered to do anything here? I note that FA has no issues with IPs. 68.39.174.238 22:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The acceptance or failure of a Good Article is dependent on one person's decision, unlike Features Articles. Because of this, it would be very easy for people to cause mayhem if IPs were allowed. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say though, there are two or three perma-anon users on Wikipedia who have static IPs and are just like regular users, (well, except for not being allowed to do a bunch of things) there may need to be exceptions made on a case by case basis :/. Homestarmy 07:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Forcing people to create an account to participate in GA is not a big requirement.  The perma-anon users are free to create an account solely for GA purposes.  --Ideogram 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of them has stated that they literally cannot create an account, it sounds like for very serious reasons, though they won't disclose why. Homestarmy 23:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPs 

message: I do not particulary support the subsection Mathematics and Physical Sciences (Astronomy, Theory), especially the parathesed part. Why not just call it Mathematics and Pysics? Nick Mks 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics and Physical Sciences 

message: I guess this pertains a little to the above discussion, but how excatly does one learn how to rate good articles? There's a bit of a backlog right now, and I'd like to help, but I don't trust my judgement. The criteria is vague (it has to be or it wouldn't cover every subject) so I have no guidance as to what is a good article and what is not. Should we have a way or place to learn how to rate good articles, or a mentor student thing? I don't know, maybe I'll just stick with nominating and working on articles instead of rating them.--Clyde Miller 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the criteria is intentionally vauge, it depends on who reviews things whether an article will pass or not. But really, unless somebody start suddenly putting every article you pass up on the WP:GA/R page, then you'll probably be fine. Just try to be specific about the criteria when you review articles and that might help you get a better feel for whether an article really is passing or not.  Homestarmy 22:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I found that the best way to learn was to observe. Watch the page for a while, and when an article is passed, failed, or put on hold, check the talk page and see what the reviewer said. Or do it the other way around... read the articles that are candidates, decide what you think about them, and then check afterwards to find out whether the reviewers agreed with you or not. Although the standards are indeed vague, it is surprisingly easy to get a feel for how they are used in practice. MLilburne 13:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. One more quick question. My specality is video game related articles. Would it be best for me to review those type of articles because I know how a good one is structured and what is considered broad in coverage, or should I go to something else because I may understand video game wording better than others and pass it when it should be failed?--Clyde Miller 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your choice, I think that even with a speciality in video games, you'll be able to spot articles that get too prohibitive to the general population word-choice wise, and you'll certainly be familiar enough with the genre to spot lack of broadness better than other reviewers might. The thing about lack of broadness is that often when a reviwer isn't familiar with the field of an article, its hard to figure out whether a topic is missing something :/. Homestarmy 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then I think I'll do video game articles to start. Thanks for the advice.--Clyde Miller 21:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learning Curve 

message: The backlog is still rather crazy right now, and I'm wondering if it might help to split up the nominations a little more.  For instance, Arts encompasses all sorts of things - books, movies, video games - can we split those up?  Should meteorology get its own subheading since the machines they have working over at that WikiProject are responsible for a majority of that section?  I think that if we split some of these headers up, we'll have more people able to review the articles they're comfortable with, and have fewer articles sitting for a month because of how overwhelming it is.  Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this would be a very controversial thing to do and it should be helpful, but you'll have to be careful about sorting articles in the order that they've been nominated if you move them around. Homestarmy 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, but I won't touch them until I get a little more input.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea. This would also make sense for Geography - perhaps a split by continent?  How about you split up the major headings using subheadings, rather than creating new top-level groupings? SP-KP 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my plan, leaving "arts" intact and making a third-level heading for games, books, movies, etc.  Down the line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Some of the categories are too ambiguous and it doesn't help when you are trying to find articles to review about certain subjects.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Finished.  Feel free to add/subtract/pretty it up a bit more. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why don't we just copy the main GA page style and add navframes to the page. This way the page will look less disorganized and be easier to use. Tarret 21:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that might create more hassle, there's so many categories, many of them will be empty, and it will be more difficult to nominate articles :/. Homestarmy 13:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current arrangement is visually quite confusing, though. Could we perhaps use top level headings for the top categories? That would at least draw some lines across the page and divide it up a little. MLilburne 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I tihnk it looks much, much better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we need to rethink this heavy splitting of articles. We're forgetting that the more sections there are, the harder it is to see which articles have been waiting the longest. I think each section should probably have around 10 articles under it at any given time. --SeizureDog 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so.  But it's also obvious that the time an article is sitting has little to do with when people are passing/failing.  People are more likely to look at an article in a area they're familiar or interested in, after all.  Truly, if we're worried only about making sure the oldest article gets reviewed first, we should eliminate the splitting altogether and just have one big list, but I doubt as many people would review as a result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So after writing the above comment, I'm withdrawing it.  I spend most of my time looking at science-related articles, which aren't very backlogged right now, hence the 1 or 2 article comment.  But when I went back and looked at the list, I see that even after the split, certain subcategories (meterology, for example) are still quite long.  So, never mind!  Neil916 (Talk) 16:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further splitting of nomination areas 

message: How long does it take for a GA to get reviewed? It may be better to just go to FAC if it takes so long. Some have been waiting since 4th November for a review, while mine (Paul McCartney) has been waiting since the 12th. Is GA actually an active thing, or is it a passing interest which has died? LuciferMorgan 01:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just backlogged.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got a bunch of reviewers now I see, but we also have a bunch of people willing to nominate articles :D Homestarmy 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it depends on the article and the area... some articles are going to get quicker reviews because more people are interested in them... others won't.  If it's been a while since you nominated the article the question is why?  Is it in a scientific field that some people won't touch?  Is it is a fluff field that people say, "I don't care about?"  Is it a subject that frightens people away because it is so big (EG China).I know that when I look, I'm looking for something that I'm vaguely interested in and doesn't seem too overwhelming.Balloonman 18:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time

message: An article I reviewed and failed a while back (Asian arowana) has since been greatly improved. The original nominator contacted me and asked me to look over it again. Since it has now reached GA level, can I just give it a GA Pass, or should I have him go through the process of re-nominating it first? --NoahElhardt 05:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nomination queue exists only to monitor the delay of processing. A reviewer can pick any article to review at any time. In my opinion, you can just review and pass it immediately. I have several times offered on failed nominations to re-review immediately after improvements and to skip the queue. --RelHistBuff 08:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "should I have him"---Knowing my wife she would be ecstatic if she woke up in the morning and it was a GA ;-) Balloonman 08:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! :D Tell your wife sorry! SHE has done a great job with the article, I just passed it. --NoahElhardt 16:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skipping the nomination process 

message: Why on earth is there a United States History section all to its own when everything else is shoved into "World History"?! Adam Cuerden talk 09:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blimey, that's not on. Someone ought to fix that pretty sharpish. How about dividing history historically - Ancient, Medieval, Modern?--Folantin 09:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I got rid of the bias at least. If someone wants to divide up "World History" properly, then go ahead. --Folantin 09:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll explain why I did that, with the full knowledge that if anyone had an issue, they'd change it.  Being en, it would easily be more US-centric, so I based it off of that and figured that if a pressing need to split it further arose, we could do it then.  I certainly meant no harm in it, I was merely reflecting the reality of the noms. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically, though, there were far more British history GAs at the time. Better, I think, to do it by continent (+ Oceania and the Middle East?) Adam Cuerden talk 15:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not against any further splitting.  I won't be offended if you do anything to it, really, hehe. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EH?!

message: Roman-Spartan War was removed off the nomination queue with the edit summary that it is already A-class. However, I think the nominator should decide whether to retire the nomination. A-class assessments are done in the Wikiprojects and satisfy their own internal standards while GA have a wider set of editors with a general set of standards. It may be that the author may have wanted feedback or a quality confirmation from this wider set of editors. --RelHistBuff 09:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this is the proper channel to do so... but I'm not a stickler... so no problem...Balloonman 15:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: An article can't be both? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can, but asking for a GA review after being approved for A, is kind of like asking for an A review after an FA.  Or to use non-wiki terms, it is kind of like saying, I've completed the twelfth grade, now lets go back and complete the 8th grade.  An A-class article, by definition, should meet or surpass the GA standards as it has been deemed a good article by more than one person.Balloonman 16:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the classifications seem largely arbitrary from my experience.  To list it as a GA, but keep the A class tag, doesn't seem contradictory.  Even if you've completed college, people still might want to know about your high school diploma? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it can which is why I put the article back in the GA queue. Balloonman had thought that since the article had already reached A-class within the Greece Wikiproject, GA was redundant and took it off the list. But really the set of reviewers are different. I guess it is also possible to get GA level within the Wikiproject *without* going through the GA process here (a Wikiproject assessor may assign it GA level quality). That happened to one of my articles once, although it eventually got GA here as well. It's a bit confusing... --RelHistBuff 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As it happened, I reviewed it already. Adam Cuerden talk 15:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think that allowing an article which has been counted as A-Class to be reviewed for GA-Class is a good idea, because the A-Class assessment is so unofficial. Recently, Ancient Rome, which had been counted as A-Class by one of the projects, failed its good article candidacy. Inserting an extra, more official step, into the process will help ensure that articles listed as A-Class actually are at least as good as GA-CLass articles, and also probably in the long run decrease the number of clearly unqualified articles being submitted as Featured Article candidates. That is just one person's opinion, of course. Badbilltucker 16:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for reviewing A-Class articles. I'm with Badbill- a GA review is considerably more formal than a review by the relevant project. -- Kicking222 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd like to see a rating (A, B, C, D) made by the projects, that would be independant from the GA-FA "official" process. The first one would serve as an indicator of when to apply for the second. It could even be applied to importance.--SidiLemine 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO a GA candidate should NEVER be withdrawn because it has an A - in fact, most GACs I have seen have been As.  Tito is right, these (GA/FA and A/B/Start/Stub) are different systems - the 1.0 team uses both because we need desperately to find the best articles, and GAs are a good source.  In the long term (years) we should perhaps get rid of the GA level altogether from the scheme (as Syd suggests), but while people are still tagging and learning about assessments GA provides a useful reference point. Speaking personally, I have tagged an article as A-Class even knowing that it failed GA, because the criteria are different (e.g. IMHO if the refs just need proper formatting it could be A). Walkerma 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A-class vs. GA

message: I just updated the table on GA statistics. Does anyone know where one can find the total article number? I would like to fill in the rest of the table and finish the last plot. Also, I think it is interesting that this month has seen a reduction in the rate of increase of GAs. A slow-down in promotions? Or a speed-up in delistings? Probably both. --RelHistBuff 11:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the total number of articles and I finished the last plot. One can see another interesting phenomenon. This month has seen a good harvest of FAs. So there is now a slight uptick of the percentage of FAs in Wikipedia. --RelHistBuff 12:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done for doing that RelHistBuff, it's interesting stuff as I discovered last month!  Chrisfow 00:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA statistics

message: I just realised I keep forgetting to list the new GAs in the GA list. Is there any bot way to compare the category with the list? I'll do the work of sorting all missed articles in. Adam Cuerden talk 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt if there is one, but you could probably request one at Wikipedia:Bot requests. I tend to think that it would probably be one of the simpler bots to run. Badbilltucker 17:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GAAauto has been automatically listing articles for awhile, look in the GA list page history. Homestarmy 17:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Damn!

message: Just wondering what the usual turnaround time is for GA - we've had expressionist architecture up there for over a month, does it require a specialist to look at it or should I round up a reviewer and point them in the right direction? --Mcginnly | Natter 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bit of a blacklog right now of about a month at most unfortunently, many articles may take quite awhile to come up for review :/. Homestarmy 02:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll sit tight then. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is somebody who is objective, EG not involved with the article and is familiar with the GA criteria, then you can solicit somebody to review the article.  Unfortunately, for you, the fact that your article has been up there for a month is indicative of a potential that your article doesn't have widespread appeal.  People who rate articles do so as volunteers.  We read articles that capture our personal attention.  Expressionist Architecture has zero appeal to me... I'm more likely to find a history or sports related article to read.  But after a month, I would encourage you to find somebody or solicit somebody specifically to review your article.  Find somebody who has approved architecture articles in the past and ask them to read the page.Balloonman 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the normal waiting time for this process?

message: So let me get this straight. If I want to review articles (and I do, it would give me a purpose on Wikipedia), all I have to do is know the GA criteria and not have made signifigant contributions to the article?  If that's all, than that's great. Am I missing something here? It seems to good to be true! Green451 00:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides that and making sure to write up the review on the talk page, that's pretty much it. Other things to know are that delisting an article from the list requires a wait time for other editors to comment at your discretion, and reviewing older articles first helps, and you can list anything you have problems with but aren't compleatly sure about on the Review page, but none of that is necessary if you just want to review candidates at first. Homestarmy 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some articles have zero citations. Why should we have to wait for consensus on open and shut cases? It's a waste of time. LuciferMorgan 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? Not all old articles have 0 inline citations. Homestarmy 01:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some do - I know because I've been delisting them. LuciferMorgan 01:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, then.  I'm going to go "boldly go where I've never gone before!".  I'll get my feet wet reviewing a few noms.  If I make a mistake, just give me a shout. Green451 02:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewing articles 

message: I was bold and unilaterally changed the verbiage of WP:GAC (but you'll note I took the changes to Talk.. other changes have been made recently which I plan to revist after final exams).
The next verbiage that I added says "no less than 2 and no more than 7 calendar days." I feel OK about putting a bottom limit of 2 days to the On hold since putting an article on Hold in the first place is purely at the reviewer's discretion. Anyone who puts anything On Hold must logically be willing to wait at least some time.
--Ling.Nut 14:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''On Hold''' 

message: I am currently the reviewer of the GA nom for Duck Hunt. I put it on hold so that the nominator could fix stuff, and we have kept an open dialogue.  This is my first time reviewing a GA nom, so if a more experienced reviewer has the time, could they please check out the article and my review on the article's talk page to make sure that I'm doing everything right?  Thanks, Green451 23:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your review appears fine so far, just remember, the objective isn't necessarily to run out of things to critique, articles are supposed to be good, not perfect :). Homestarmy 23:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. You've got a point that I might just be being a bit too picky...anyway, thanks for the thumbs up. Green451 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double-check 

message: I'm a new reviewer... and still learning.  A week or so ago I passed an article on Billy Sunday.  One of the contributors to the article, however, questioned my passing of the article.  He feels as if it was too POV, but I wasn't sure.  I was wondering if I could get some feedback from other more experienced reviewers on this article.  Was I too easy on my passing it?  I thought it was a good, well written, easy to read article... it wasn't perfect, but was one of the better articles I read.Balloonman 16:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does appear to be slightly POV in the body of the article in my opinion. However, if you want to be sure, you can file a GA/R over it. There's nothing wrong with being unsure over the criteria at times, they're slightly ambiguous specifically to avoid the more legalistic criteria of FA :) .Homestarmy 22:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Billy Sunday]] 

message: Is it normal if there is two social sciences sections (and one is empty).Frédérick Lacasse 14:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! I hadn't noticed that. There has been some rearranging of the sections very recently, and there may have been a minor mistake. But I have deleted the redundant section. Thanks for your keen eye! :-) --Ling.Nut 17:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social sciences 

message: I don't have time to work on it myself, but I thought someone might want to review Toilet-related injury, just for fun. -- Beland 10:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toilet-related injury 

message: Someone who really knows the GA project should review the way the requests for review page is organized. The problem is that the categorization on it does not match the categorization of GA articles themselves. That leaves reviewers who know where an article is in the review page the task of trying to figure out where it belongs on the GA listing page. The two should be consistent. I don't want to undertake the task for two reasons: 1. I'm lazy and 2. I don't want to make changes that would have unforeseen repercussions. The latter is the real reason why someone with better knowledge of the project should address this issue. It would actually be nice to see greater automation of this process, but that's would require some real development +Fenevad 15:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with this page 

message: Someone who didn't know what they were doing promoted Slayer as a GA, left no comments on the talk page and didn't add it to the GA list until told on their user talk page. I was hoping a more experienced GA reviewer could take a look, as i would like some feed-back to bring it up to FA standards. Thanks. M3tal H3ad 06:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done plenty of work getting articles featured as per my profile! :) --PopUpPirate 12:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh the maiden dude! thanks for clearing up the review. M3tal H3ad 12:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for a experienced GA reviewer

message: There are some articles that have been there for a long time now...almost a month and some are not even on hold. Could experienced users or people who generally rate good articles clear them up first? Shouldn't the priority be given to the oldest articles first? Just a thought...thanks. Fedayee 07:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priority 

message: Is anybody reviewing these pages? One is tempted to say that one must pull one's finger out, if you'll pardon the expression. andreasegde 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of a backlog develops occasionally, but it gets cleared up soon enough. Homestarmy 19:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I truly hope it will. Thank you kindly, Homestarmy. andreasegde 21:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: I reviewed Dominik Hasek and felt it had some minor problems so I put it on hold. I am allowed to fix them myself and pass it rightt? I am leaving them the way they are now (I did find and install a photo for the article) until I know for sure. Quadzilla99 12:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if their minor problems, fixing them wouldn't constitute a major contribution in my opinion. I'd back you up anyway if you wanted to fix it and somebody objected, assuming their actually minor edits :). Homestarmy 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll just forego that and see if someone wants to implement the changes I stated on the article's talk page to be safe. Once I start editing the article I may contribute more than what are deemed minor changes. Quadzilla99 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review Question

message: Is it possible for an article to be nominated for GA while a peer review is still open? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 21:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it wouldn't be.... Homestarmy 22:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thank you for clearing this. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 23:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination while peer reviewing? 

message: Why doesn't this article have a Table of Contents? It would be easier to go directly to the topics you like, such as sports, arts, science, etc.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quadzilla99 (talk • contribs).
::Yes, I agree.Wikidudeman 10:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of Contents

message: I know that there is not too much length requirements for GA if its too long, but can it be too short? I was looking through a lot of the candidates and there are a couple that are only four sections of information or so with about 10-15 sources? Is this reasonable or is the topic not considered broad enough. Examples would include: Vestibule (Architecture), Scud FM, or Service flag. I just want to know for sure as I attempt to help weed out the easy ones while clearing the the backlog. --Nehrams2020 05:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there needs to be some sort of length requirement, say at least have a table of contents and x amount of words or references. The external links is bigger then the whole article of Service Flag. M3tal H3ad 07:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you both. andreasegde 15:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a GA/R recently over an article with this problem, it was only like 3 or four well-referenced short paragraphs with no sections. Generally, most extremely short articles suffer from problems like lack of broadness, but some obscure topics like, say, distant stars are often extremely short yet have been passed in the past. I don't know if we really need a length requirement, because so far, when an article has been extremely short its failed in some other way besides just the length. Homestarmy 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article length?

message: Is there some way we could make the pass/fail review easier? Right now it takes a bunch of coordinated edits to different pages, and it's basically a lot of work. Is there some way we could us "the system" to do this for us? For instance:
1) couldn't the placement of the nomination on the candidates page be automated by placing the "category" in the GAnomination tag on the article's talk page? That would eliminate one edit.
2) likewise, when moving from nomination to pass/fail, this too could be completely automated as in (1). These changes alone would eliminate four edits.
3) Could a 'bot be used to inform the nominating user?
4) When you do a peer review a new talk page is automatically created. Could this not be done for GA as well?
Maury 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When moving to pass, we already have a script for that, but i've been unable to get anyone to help with it enough for it to run. The user who ran it, User:Cedars, left suddenly after some fair use publicity thing and didn't tell anyone how to run User:Cedars/gaauto.pl :( . I thought I had both pearl and cURL installed properly but I can't make this script run... Homestarmy 22:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you possibly ask the Village Pump and see if anyone can help you run it there? --Nehrams2020 05:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did awhile ago, no response. I asked User:Beland and a user who posted on the cURL page about it too, (I think the problem is with cURL now) but no response from either of them. (I think Beland has been busy for awhile) Homestarmy 13:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  can you briefly describe the current functionality and the required input/output(any online examples?)?  As TMTOWTDI is the Perl motto, I'll bet there is another way to accomplish the same thing without the need for cURL. --Roswell native 15:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The script uses the files for output detailed on Cedar's page, User:Cedars/gaauto.pl. It uses cURL to get the text of the main GA page, then checks to make sure the file is downloaded, yet I can't get it to actually put anything in the file it claims it will use :/. It's supposed to take the page and format it in the current GA page layout, then sort the pages, add GA's which have been recently promoted but not listed, (I think) and remove article's which aren't GA's. Someone made the suggestion on another page that the script might be changed to just use a local file, so I could copy the current GA page and have it just change it locally and I upload it myself, but I don't know which parts of the script should be commented out for that :/. Homestarmy 16:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On the topic of making GAC easier to deal with, would anyone mind if I went through GAC and failed anything that didn't have references? I would say something like X articles failed, see talk page for more information in the edit summary. Its mad to have articles here that have no references. RHB Talk - Edits 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making this easier? 

message: Need I say more? andreasegde 20:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm new to the reviewing process, but I did a couple over the last few days. I'll try to do at least one or two a week to help out. But I'll also be nominating some myself, so I'll probably just be offsetting myself. --Nehrams2020 20:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good man. andreasegde 21:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't you help out with some music ones? RHB Talk - Edits 21:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider myself qualified enough, and I would hate to fail someone without being really sure. andreasegde 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a couple in the geography section, but I am doubtful that I am qualified enough to be definitive in whether something is (rather than just seems to be) a good article or not. --Kmsiever 15:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should all start a club. The "Not quite sure, but we'll have a go at it Club". andreasegde 17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. I don't think I should be president though; someone more qualified than I should. --Kmsiever 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Go on, a bit cliched but be bold!. The backlog is only increasing, by the way :( RHB Talk - Edits 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem is that I have two pages waiting for a review, and I will surely be accused of failing them because I "want to move up in the queue". "Between a rock and a hard place", as they say... andreasegde 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to back you up :) RHB Talk - Edits 19:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorely tempted. Thank you, RHB. andreasegde 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Same here. I started reviewing GA noms because the ones I've nominated are never going to be reviewed at the rate it was going. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise. I guess that's how everybody ends up here. --Nehrams2020 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. I'll try and help out. - Mtmelendez 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. I'm currently working on a school paper due for tomorrow, but I'll definitely try to knock out a lot throughout the week. --Nehrams2020 20:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Since you are now a "club" I would like to present you, on behalf of the Wikiproject Good articles with your own page (found here). Tarret 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful of using the word club.  Or of any group too defined outside of the main encyclopedia.  Just be wary. DoomsDay349 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Afraid of anti-Esperanza type deletionists DoomsDay? :D Homestarmy 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a cough drop, but I don't think I can help you with your eye twitch. Nehrams2020 00:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the topic of clearing the backlog, would anyone mind if I went through GAC and failed anything that didn't have references? I would say something like X articles failed, see talk page for more information (where X = the number of articles) in the edit summary. Its mad to have articles here that have no references. RHB Talk - Edits 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it is one of the GA criteria required to be passed, I'd say fail it. But it would probably be best if you did it one at a time for the edit summary and make sure you let the nominator of the article know that you failed it. --Nehrams2020 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of making it a bit less bureaucratic and not leaving messages on talk pages etc though, and only really here on the talk page. I think there are at least 20-30 articles here that arent referenced at all. RHB Talk - Edits 00:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just think it is better to alert the people who nominate the article who may not watch this page so they can know that their article was failed as soon as possible for them to begin improving it. Just include a basic form letter message saying the article they nominated failed, and to see the article's talk page to see why. --Nehrams2020 00:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Backlog

message: Hello all.  I nominated an article on the 4th that hasn't even been touched yet so I wanted to get involved and help with the backlog.  I have a question about the reviewing criteria for long articles.  I wanted to review the Social structure of the United States article (probably not a good choice for my first review, but...hey, what damage could I really do?!?).  It is a long article and I read this in the GA review criteria:
:For articles longer than about 25 kB, rigorous reviewing of the Wikipedia peer review and featured article candidates guidelines is often more appropriate than the process here.
Does this mean I should review it according to Peer Review or FAC standards and pass or fail accordingly?  Although the style and prose is excellent, I was leaning towards failing the article based two of the other GA criteria, but really could go either way.  If it has to stand up to the more rigorous criteria of PR & FAC I'm afraid I'd have to "fail" it.  I am hesitant to fail an article (especially my first review) without being sure.  Any advice?--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that the way we grade articles changes much for longer articles, its that often the longer articles sometimes tend to get more benefit from peer review or FAC where people often have the time to give extremely in-depth analysis's which, if they were repeated for GAC's, would likely make the backlog here much, much larger because they would just take so much more time for extensive articles Homestarmy 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't fail it on length alone, rather suggest that the article could benefit from summarisation. However if it fails other criteria as you said, then it should not be passed. Explain why you believe it didn't meet the criteria on the articles talk page (follow the instructions given on the top of the candidate page). That way they can fix it if they wish and re-submit when its ready. Thanks for helping! Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Long articles

message: The on hold tag states that the tag only stays in place 7 days.  If it's been there for that much time and still doesn't pass, should it be failed?  There are two in the television section that haven't corrected all their problems as of yet, and the tags have run out.  DoomsDay349 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fail 'em. Since the hold status expires after 7 days, it has to either pass or fail. --JerryOrr 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should that be added to the information on the good article candidates page? Or is it just a guideline? I know I was confused at first.A mcmurray 20:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On hold articles 

message: and my section recount just now, a total of 228 articles have been Good articled this month - the best month so far was around 146 reviewed a while ago - the backlog has somewhat stabilised at around 140 articles too, so the drive for review is going well. Getting fairly close to the landmark 2000 too :) RHB Talk - Edits 00:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but it'd be nice to be sure if we could get gaauto running again, I don't relish the task of trying to check all the articles in the list now heh. Homestarmy 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Based on [[WP:GA/S|Good Article statistics]]...

message: A reviewer put the article Jeff Hanneman on hold six days ago and has disappeared. Myself and another user left him a message on his talk page, but no no avail. I fixed the article to meet his "objections" so could someone else maybe take a look. Thanks. M3tal H3ad 10:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: Just out of interest, why is it that Good Articles have no template that places the GA symbol on the article page itself, like the Featured Article star in the top right-hand corner of the article? Thanks. Colds7ream 10:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because a featured article gets reviewed by multiple users - much more thorough then GA, and there are some really crappy GA's that get passed. Besides, someone could create two accounts for the single purpose passing their own article to get a GA star or something. M3tal H3ad 10:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Quick Question 

message: I put a request for assistance at the main community portal to hopefully get more editors to assist in clearing the backlog. Hopefully this will speed up our current pace. --Nehrams2020 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Community portal backlog announcement

message: I have nominated the article "Leonard Orban", European Commissioner on Multilingualism, as GA candidate and I have listed it under "Law and Politics" section as he is politician, but because an important part of the article is about language policy and language rights should I have listed under the "Lanugage" section? --Michkalas 14:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see much problem with your category listing. Homestarmy 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question - In whici section to list an article? 

message: This article was placed on hold on February 16th pending work on criteria concerns raised by a reviewer, which have now been addressed. 7 days is the limit an article can be put on hold, but the reviewer hasn't edited since the 18th despite leaving two messages on their talk page. Can someone objectively review the article and either fail or pass it please? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 22:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reviewer has placed a [] on my talk page asking for me to pass the article as they're real busy, but I cannot due to conflict of interest. While I didn't improve the article, I'm still a member of the Slayer Wikiproject which rates this article as top importance. Can someone objectively review the article and pass / fail? Thanks. LuciferMorgan 23:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been 8 days on hold now. Can someone pass or fail asap? LuciferMorgan 23:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As I understand it, the original reviewer is now happy with the article and simply wanted someone else to sort out the tags for them.  Does it really need a whole new review? - Alex valavanis 00:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doesn't. It's just as I may not be classed as objective, I didn't wish to seem to be out of line and be bending the process. Anyway, someone has reviewed the article and passed it now. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jeff Hanneman]]

message: Hello,
I've developed a proof-of-concept javascript tool that will display an article's assessed rating on the article page itself. It currently does so by prepending the rating to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", so it becomes "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." It also changes the color of the article title to roughly match the color scheme of the grades.
To add it to your User:YourUserName/monobook.js file, add this text:
 
 // Script from User:Outriggr/metadata.js
 document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Outriggr/metadata.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></s'+'cript>');
 
Purposes: 
* increase visibility of article ratings; users can more easily determine that an article's rating is way behind the times, for example.
* gives the user an overall sense of how many articles are rated, and need rating.
* sets a user's expectation for the article's quality.
This is fairly "simple" right now and I'd welcome any feedback or ideas.
Thanks, –Outriggr § 20:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  javascript tool to display an article's rating on the article page 

message: Why not change  officially to its alternative, , to match  Wouldn't even need to move :Template:GA nominee, as there's already a redirect. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden talk 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me. Homestarmy 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested recommended template name change

message: Just to let you know,  has been nominated for deletion here. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: When an editor has been heavily involved in an article or series of articles, that editor should not be involved in writing reviews, as it simply asserting that editor's opinion colored by the content disputes that editor has been involved with, rather than providing an objective e4valuation of an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Well, yes, it's alreadly in the rules that editors who signifigantly contribute to an article shouldn't review it, is there some particular problem you have with a reviewer? Homestarmy 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See Diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. In full honesty I made some consistent editing to Egyptian Invasion of Mani, that I passed, after if was put among the GAC by an editor, as I didn't see anything wrong on working with the grammar and formatting problems, since I did this after the article was candidated.--Aldux 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in question looks like WP:GA/R material to me, unless someone else gives a review that everyone is happy with. Homestarmy 23:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you please clarify? I am not sure I understand what you said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that if the argument isn't resolved by a non-involved reviewer reviewing the article you're concerned about or doesn't make a decision you or other people can agree with, then you can file a Good Article review over this article to settle the dispute. Homestarmy 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   When GA a review is not a review  

message: There are numerous articles in this part. This will cause to delay. Therefore I suggest to separate Law and politics.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Separation of Law and Politics

message: Thanks to Ivo for the idea.  Feel free to add your own additions to this list:
DRAFT BELOW:
The following criteria can be used to decide when it is appropriate to quick-fail a Good Article nominee without an extensive review
1. There is an image in obvious violation of Fair Use or Copyright policies, (EDIT): or large portions of text that are violate copyright policies. IvoShandor 12:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: I would reword this to there are inadequate references. A 35kb article with one or two references should automatically fail, that's just an example. IvoShandor 12:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag failure without investigating the issues should be discouraged however. Thus I recommend leaving tags off, as it is likely to create confusion. IvoShandor 08:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can investigate whether tag is correct or not. But if it was correct, we would leave other issues.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I can live with that. But it should be stipulated explicitly when this draft goes live. IvoShandor 12:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What about lists and the like, either full lists, such as List of F-Zero titles or articles that are mostly lists? They obviously fail criteria #1. IvoShandor 08:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are featured lists, it depends on the content whether it is appropriate to present it as a list.--DorisHノート 08:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not according to a recent GA review. I guess it's still open. But this is Good articles, there doesn't seem to be anyway to include a list and still have it pass as "well written."IvoShandor 08:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's precisely why Wikipedia:Featured lists exists. IvoShandor 08:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What I am getting at is a list can never be well written, it can only be well listed. IvoShandor 08:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to quickfail an article for GA: DRAFT