Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 8

message: Does the "don't nominate movies that haven't been released yet" rule apply to sporting events for stability rules? Someone nominated UEFA Euro 2008 but since the event in question is a year away and obviously massive amounts of editing will be done to reflect the circumstances that actually occur (obviously there can be no general "results" section yet, for example), should it be quickfailed? Cheers, CP 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no problem with this.  Of course, once the UEFA Euro 2008 competition has occured, and the article meets the criteria in place at that time, there is nothing wrong with it becoming a GA then.  Wikipedia is not in a rush... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the event is close at hand, there's hardly a point in making such an article a GA at all, the content will almost certainly change radically in the very near future, barring catastropic disaster which disables Wikipedia. However, if the article probably won't be changing radically in the near future, why not acknowladge an article in such a state as good if it really is good? Such an article could maintain stability and quality for many months after all. But i'm only speaking about a hypothetical article, in this particular article's case, there seems to be so little information that the article is more like a list at the moment. Homestarmy 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to quick fail this when I saw it turn up yesterday, for this very reason.  I was going to use the precedent set at 2007 Rugby World Cup, and the good grace the Rugby crowd took that failure, as the rationale in the talk page.  In the end though, being a very recent addition to the GA reviewer crowd, I chickened out decided to let a more experienced reviewer do it!  There are also only 5 references in there.  Exactly the same reasons were used for failure when they took the article to FAC a few months ago.  Carre 07:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it's not even limited to future sporting events. What about future construction projects? A lot of the sections just have one sentence because there simply isn't enough information out there yet, so I suppose this one would fail for "broadness of coverage" most likely. Cheers, CP 20:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future sporting events 

message: An idea, based on my experience: When a reviewer fails a GAC, it would be helpful for future reviewers (after the article has been improved and re-nominated) if the first review lists the criteria, followed by  and  tags. This way, the second reviewer can easily see what was good about the article and what needed work. (Obviously, improvements and negative changes are possible, but this would give us a good place to start considering what to look for.) I personally feel limited by templates like , but the checks and X's would be useful for me. 
What do other folks think? – Scartol · Talk 16:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use  instead of . Geometry guy 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) G'guy beat me to it! Yes, GAList uses buttons which cover pass, fail, question, and (apparently) "what the fuck?". LaraLove 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the good way, I hope ;) Geometry guy 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think everyone's going to have their own personal opinions and preferences on how to pass/fail articles, so whatever works best for a particular reviewer is fine with me. Personally, I'm not a big fan of  and  tags; I see them used quite heavily at WP:FAC, and I don't think it really helps the process much -- it gives the false impression to editors that, by fixing the specific issues that are listed, the article will pass. This isn't often the case, as many times, its impossible to list ALL of the issues that are wrong with the article, so it's better to direct your review more closely to the GA criteria (or FA criteria, for that matter). , IMHO, does a far better job at this. Plus, it's only one meta-data tag, instead of potentially using several, which could slow things down (the heavy use of the  and  tags at WP:FAC is one of the major reasons why that page takes a long time to load, BTW),... Dr. Cash 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally use the list, and then write a detail explanation of exactly how I feel the article fails to meet the criteria, so sort of the best of both worlds. Also, if there's confusion on my review on behalf of the nominator or a future reviewer, they're always welcome to draw me back to the article and explain myself. I hold myself accountable for everything I write. On a tangent, Dr. Cash, the hold on Labrador Retriever is over twice past due now, might be time to shoo it away. Easier for me to prod you here than on your talk page. =)Cheers, CP 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In my view, the prose is the most important part of the review, so I definitely approve of Canadian Paul's approach. I don't think any template or style of review should be mandatory, but it would be reasonable to define "best practice". Geometry guy 18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I do...although only a newbie here, I figured that the list is an easy & quick reference to the fails, but recognizing it doesn't give any help to the editors on how to fix, the sectioned prose following goes into the specifics.  I guess pretty much what CP does.  Carre 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fantastic! You should write the "GA review best practice" essay! Geometry guy 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oooh. Carre yours is even better than mine because yours divides the prose by section too. I do mine chronologically (at least, in the order that the information appears in the article), which generally prevents me from doing it by section - but I think that any review that clearly states where and in what capacity the article fails in is good. And like I said, the reviewer should be able to go back at any time and explain exactly what the issues are to other editors and the nominator. Cheers, CP 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've done up a modest proposal in my sandbox. In addition to the style stuff listed above, I've rephrased the items as questions, and made them all into positive options, so that the use of pro- or con- icons is consistent. (Does a pro- vote for "Lack of images" – 6b – mean the article does lack images or does not lack them?) Comments and feedback are welcome, and again if someone can walk me through the next steps I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance. – Scartol · Talk 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think of it this way. A "nay" vote for "Lack of images" means that the article lacks images despite the fact that free images could be reasonably believed to be available. Example: Wade Mainer got an award from the United States national government, but I never thought to check the award's site to see if there was a free picture until someone suggested that I do - and indeed there was. So if I had submitted that article for GA before I got the picture, I could get a "nay" because an image was available that I did not use. Cheers, CP 17:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's not what a "nay" vote for "Lack of images" suggests to me. It's like asking: "Does this cup lack fluid?" "No" would mean it does not lack fluid, meaning it has fluid in it. Notice that all the other items on the template are positive-format: Well-written, etc. Those make immediate sense to me. It's a minor point, to be sure, since both templates will remain available. – Scartol · Talk 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about using {{Y}} and {{N}} in GA Fails so future reviewers know what to look for? 

message: If anyone's interested, I went ahead and made a  template. Each item is on a separate line, and the headings are questions. Thanks to  for the original code. – Scartol · Talk 00:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAList2 now available 

message: I was going to fail the article because I felt it was original research in that it did use sources but the sources never directly state anything specifically about Hispanic Admirals in the US Navy, it was just more facts that had something either to do with Hispanics in the military or admirals in general. I would like another reviewer to look at it as well. T Rex | talk 03:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's OK - for as long as the sources back up the fact they're placed inline with, it should suffice. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 07:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That't not the issue, it's whether the topic is supported by sources itself. T Rex | talk 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hispanic Admirals in the United States Navy]] 

message: I have some questions for the more experienced reviewers out there:
In the course of reviewing Wisden Trophy, I did a fair bit of copy-editing.  Does that invalidate me from having the final say on pass/fail?  (The article is on hold for other reasons at the moment, but once sorted I think it should pass).
Is an online citation source that requires a viewer to register (in this instance, cricinfo) acceptable for GA?
I was going to ask for a second opinion, once the on-hold issues are addressed, for these reasons.  However, if I ask the questions now, then I may not have to!  Thanks. Carre 14:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can actively improve an article as you review it. You just don't want to review articles you've already contributed substantially to prior to nomination. As far as sources requiring registration, you want to avoid those if other sources are available. However, if you can find no other sources, they can be used. Those that require a subscription are even less appreciated, so for those you really need to find another source. LaraLove 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though in some fields such as chemistry, nearly all of the primary sources online require (very expensive) subscriptions - so for an article like aldol reaction there may be no choice....! Walkerma 15:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something isn't found online for free doesn't automatically invalidate the source. Even academic journals can still be obtained for free by pretty much anyone that wants it, by **gasp** going to the library! Plus, most sites requiring subscription will at least off the abstract free of charge. Dr. Cash 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: First, let me say that I didn't mean that paid subscriptions invalidate a source. I just meant you should try to use free sources when available. That aside, for what Dr. Cash has said, if you feel there are whole sections needing to be added or changed, talk it out on the talk page with the review and let the editors of the article make the changes. That's how I do it. LaraLove 04:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple of questions 

message: As a side issue to a pointless discussion about merging GA with PR, it has been pointed out that the GAN page is rather complicated. I guess it hasn't been looked at for some time, as some of the instructions were out-of-date. Anyway, I've taken the liberty of giving it a bit of a copyedit and tidy. I hope I've not done anything controversial. In particular, I've moved the instructions to a /guidelines subpage, and intend to work on it a bit there. I hope others will join in if necessary. Geometry guy 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks great. I was going to talk to you about the possibility of changing around so that the two columns would no longer be columns but one above the other, then I saw you'd done it. Looks good. Lara❤Love 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streamlining 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 29th September 2007. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Derek.cashman2. Canadian Paul3. VanTucky4. Carre5. Dihydrogen Monoxide. Epbr123 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats to all of the other four reviewers! Keep up the great work! Sadly, the backlog still isn't getting any smaller,... On another note, I'm a bit surprised that I got the #1 spot again -- I thought I was slipping a bit as I was busy with other things, like trying to salvage Criticism of Wal-Mart from losing its GA status! Dr. Cash 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was doing well early in the week...2 reviews a day at one stage.  But it couldn't last...maybe next week :D  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 09:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think everyone's putting in such great effort, but it's a bit disheartening how little, if at all, the backlog goes down. I try to do one review a day (quickfails not withstanding), partially because I want to make sure the one review I do gets the attention it deserves and partially because nominating articles like this for deletion shows how "You don't seem to understand the purpose of wikipedia.org". Sigh. Part of the reason I started assessing articles was because it's more pleasant to work on quality from the top than the bottom. Anyhow, congratulations to Dr. Cash and all those who are reviewing! If nothing else, we're at least keeping it below 200 most days! Cheers, CP 14:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd like to thank you all as well. I don't review as much as I should (I'm more interested in building articles myself), but I do plan to do more of it once I've finished with my three front-burners. Your diligence is appreciated. – Scartol · Talk 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 29/9/2007 

message: I have moved some of the discussions, such as those pertaining to the 'Good Article Ladder', 'streamlining', and 'feature good articles daily', over to WikiProject Good Articles, since these deal more with issues pertaining to the development of the overall GA program. Dr. Cash 05:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Wrad 05:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of discussions 

message: I was thinking about reviewing Mon Calamari cruiser, but I'm not sure it meets notability standards.  All but two of its refrences (Mon Calamari cruiser#References) are related to Star Wars and George Lucas.  Are we supposed to take this into account?  In other respects it's a good little article on a little subject. - Peregrine Fisher 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it meets notability standards. Lara❤Love 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll review it. - Peregrine Fisher 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article isn't notable, then it should probably be sent to AfD instead of being reviewed. Homestarmy 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAs of uncertain notability 

message: All reviewers taking part in WP:FAC, WP:GAN, and WP:PR, are encouraged to take a look at Wikipedia:Content review/workshop. While there's no specific proposals on changing anything currently, we're trying to initiate a friendly discussion regarding the review processes on wikipedia as a whole, and how to improve all of them. Dr. Cash 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have argued against the fast set-up of this workshop by Marskell at WP:VPR#Workshop. I think it would be better if Mike Christie drove the process. However, any initiative whose goal is to generate friendly discussion and improvement of process cannot be a bad thing. Geometry guy 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review workshop 

message: I've made a proposal to add to the quick-fail criteria at Wikipedia talk:Reviewing good articles#Addition to the quick-fail criteria.3F VanTucky Talk 22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: The LONG modification appears to be a throwback to the days when 32K mattered. Now every article has its length in the edit history, so I will remove it. Geometry guy 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Nowadays all it means is Not Short. Wrad 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, it is important to me! I never review those, as I simply don't have the time to give a thorough review to an article of this bulk. I also believe we should still encourage authors of longer articles to go straight for FA, as I believe they somehow clutter the process OR force not-so-stellar reviews (in my experience, reviewing a long article takes about three to four the same time than a short article, if done thoroughly). I am wasting all the time I could use reviewing posting on those talk pages anyway... PrinceGloria 06:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with PrinceGloria: it is a useful disclaimer to any potential reviewers that the article will take a bit longer to review.  Regardless of what it used to imply, it still seems useful to me.Drewcifer 06:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For every listed article, much more precise information is just one click away: history. Geometry guy 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but it doesn't "discourage" people from posting them here. I really believe this process doesn't work too well with too long articles. Also, conversely, it is a very little thing a nominator can do for the reviewers. PrinceGloria 06:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I like this proposal, having queried the relevance of the 'long' label before. IMO it's just as easy, and more informative, to quickly scan through an article before deciding whether or not to review. EyeSereneTALK 08:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: G'guy, how dare you make such a bold, unilateral move without consesnsus! :P Personally, I agree with SandyGeorgia. I don't really do GAN anymore for the time being, but it was useful to me b/c I too would quickly scan past those for lack of time. Lara❤Love 16:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty radical, aren't I! A whole line of process removed at the click of a mouse :) Seriously though, no one reads instructions anyway, so you can expect people used to marking LONG's to continue to do so, and others to omit it, whether the instruction is there or not. Geometry guy 18:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep long tag. Everyone seems to have overlooked the fact that some browsers crash when trying to load pages over this length, as is widely known. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that was only old browsers from back in the day and not really an issue anymore. Lara❤Love 14:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LONG 

message: I'm working towards nominating an article that I have been working on for GA status, but I had a question. Forgive me for my ignorance, but I remember hearing that a BLP can't become a good article if it has no picture (which, of course, means a free picture in most, if not all circumstances). Is that true? My attempts to acquire a free picture of this individual have met with much frustration, but I was wondering whether or not this was a requirement. This will also be useful as I review BLP articles myself for GA (I've avoided reviewing BLP's; this is one of the reasons). Cheers, CP 23:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of this rule before, and it sounds very silly if its somehow part of the GA criteria. Fair Use images of living people are not always readily available, and certainly shouldn't be expected in 100 percent of all BLP's. Homestarmy 23:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "rule" is that images be included if available and when appropriate. If there is no free image available, then it can be GA without. You just don't want to have a fair use image included. Lara❤Love 01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay great! Thanks! I was working through all the points on the peer review and worried that something like that might stop it... Cheers, CP 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not needed for GA, although at FAC they might get a bit more picky.  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Question on Images in BLP 

message: Tomorrow will make one month that this article has been listed.  Is it appropriate to ask someone to review this today or tomorrow since this year's race is on Sunday.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Easy:  unstable. :-) Geometry guy 20:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Based on how the article is structured, would having the information about this years race really change it that much? Homestarmy 21:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a joke, sorry for any confusion. Geometry guy 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Logo needs a FUR. --Nehrams2020 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, the race is a current story this week.  So when I was reading a magazine on the bus this week I saw info that helped improve the encyclopedic content of the article.  So yes, adding this years info is worth adding.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  14:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect to WP:FUR, most athletic organizations such as Major League Baseball, Los Angeles Dodgers, Montreal Canadiens, New York Giants, Olympic Games and Indianapolis 500 are allowed a Fair use image.  I will try to run it up the flagpole however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  14:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The people at WP:FUR, think you meant it needed a WP:FURG, which they have helped me to provide.  Again, any assistance in an expedited WP:GAC review would be greatly appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, in Tony's defense, the article was listed on September 5, which was about a month ago. So it has been on the page awhile. I don't think I'd say this is a case of an "expedited review" here. As far as stability is concerned, I don't think there's any edit warring in the article, and I think it's unlikely that the article will see a huge increase in editing after the event, unlike things like football & basketball teams & games, which tend to have far more passionately involved fans that are far more likely to insert inappropriate POV into an article than a couple of marathon runners. Plus, the article is about the chicago marathon as a whole, not just a single year's event. Dr. Cash 00:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, there are at least five articles that haven't been reviewed that were posted before Chicago Marathon. IvoShandor 10:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chicago Marathon]] 

message: This may be obvious, but isn't it possible that a big reason for the backlog is that we're in the middle of GA sweeps? That's taking up the time of some of our best reviewers. While I admit we have a backlog, I think that we are just in the middle of an unusual bottleneck period. I don't really think the system itself is under threat. Wrad 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Once sweeps are done, more time will be freed up by some of the more experienced reviewers, so it will get better. Plus, the backlog has gone down a little bit this week, too. Dr. Cash 20:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably it. Also, there have been a couple of users just going around and nominating all the big name articles, which doesn't exactly help things. VanTucky Talk 20:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How are sweeps doing, anyway? How do you do them? I've been debating jumping in... Wrad 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this maybe wishful thinking. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/Project_quality_task_force/Sweeps/Running_total, there are only 11 reviewers doing sweeps. Admittedly, they are generally among the more experienced and prolific reviewers, but in several cases (e.g. the impressive Dr. Cash) they continue to review many good article nominations. Geometry guy 16:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: Hi, thought that I would step in and pick up a review as I have made a nomination. Took a look at an article in the list and found to is under formal arbitration - presumably this would constitute a quick fail even though there are no current edit-wars. Keith D 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which article is this? Wrad 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami - I have not marked it as yet on the page. Keith D 22:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Took a quick look at it, and I can't say the article is ready for GA. Lots of manual of style issues, lots of short sections, referencing is sporadic and inconsistent (two sentence have like 10 cites on them?!?!), there's some listing going on at the end. It looks like the article needs quite a bit of work. Dr. Cash 08:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First review 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 6th October 2007. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Derek.cashman2. Canadian Paul3. Johnfos4. VanTucky5. Noeticsage. Epbr123 09:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations to Derek and others.  I feel we put a dent in the backlog over this past week... Johnfos 09:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats to all the other reviewers! The backlog did make a noticeable jump downwards this week, which is good. Maybe once sweeps is over, we'll get rid of the rest,... ;-) Dr. Cash 18:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one for Dr.Cash :). Man people must envy you. Congrats though. Can someone help me with these? I wanna be as good as you guys, but I make too many mistakes.Mitch32contribs 18:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright Cash, that's the last straw. I'm calling in my favor from the Gambino family ;) Good work everyone! VanTucky Talk 21:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't wear cement shoes,... I only make them! ;-) Dr. Cash 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 6/10/2007 

message: As I plan to review December to Dismember (2006) later tonight, I'm wondering if the rationale for quickfail on that article was justified or not. At first I though not, because the self-published sources criteria doesn't seem to apply in that case, but perhaps I'm wrong or have missed part of the policy. Anyhow, I wanted to know because, if it is justified, it'll more or less force me to fail the December article (not quickly though, since there are SOME non-WWE sources in that one). Cheers, CP 17:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quickfail of [[One Night Stand (2006)]] 

message: Please refrain from the use of automated review bots while reviewing articles for GA status. The comments provided are very mundane and minor, not very helpful to editors, and really provide more information and go way beyond the Good Article criteria, which could be very confusing to some editors reading reviews. Dr. Cash 04:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we mention this in our review helps? Wrad 05:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say so. In great big letters ;) EyeSereneTALK 18:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  automated review bots 

message: The two oldest nominations, Microformat and World Community Grid, are both listed as "under review" by User:Pursey, who has just indicated on his user page that he's taking a wikibreak for a family emergency. Since both these noms are almost two months old, should his "under review" notices been taken down so that someone can review the articles? Cheers, CP 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was contacted about these early in the month and there was a response but no action taken. I would suggest someone take over these reviews if there is no response from Pursey a second time. VanTucky Talk 20:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The two oldest nominations... 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Canadian Paul as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 13th October 2007. Canadian Paul is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Canadian Paul2. Derek.cashman3. VanTucky4. Sandstein5. Peripitus. Epbr123 13:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice to see someone new on the top spot ;) Congrats all! EyeSereneTALK 14:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats Canadian Paul! You beat me, eh? ;-) Dr. Cash 17:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you gotta watch out for those sneaky Canadians! ;) Congrats to all though, the backlog never topped 200 all week, if I'm not mistaken, despite many incoming nominations! Cheers, CP 00:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I don't understand: I thought the GAN Reviewer of the week was supposed to be Dr. Cash. Has there been a procedural error? :-) Geometry guy 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. A kink in the time-space continuum must have altered the results, somehow dropping some of Derek's work. Tragic. Lara❤Love 04:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh your streak got broked. T Rex | talk 05:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 13/10/2007 

message: I think we should remove the Miscellaneous category from the nominations page. 90% of all the entries that go in there have to be removed and placed in a proper category. I've maybe seen five noms that truly fit the Misc. bill. I think removing it, and forcing people to have the patience to look for the place their nom should really go, is the best thing to do. Having to spend extra time reorganizing noms on this page is the last thing we want to be doing. Considering all the time and care reviewers give to nominated articles, I don't think it's too much to ask of nominators that they take the effort to help us out by properly categorizing their noms. VanTucky Talk 18:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Geometry guy 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section - the only article in it at the time (Guyball) was moved to the Miscellaneous recreation section. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 01:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: But we can have Misc. sections for each larger topic, ala the Misc. recreation above. This way both purposes are served, confused nominators can have a place to go and reviewers don't have to recategorize articles constantly. And despite your perspective, there most definitely has been a backlog of uncategorized articles in the section. I know, I've moved several of them myself, and others have moved even more. VanTucky Talk 01:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there's a backlog all over the page; but specifically, I've seen some categories in some of the pop culture categories with far greater nominees than in the miscellaneous categories. Dr. Cash 02:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, those pop culture categories are actual categories that have a definition and scope. The articles that have been getting sequestered to Misc. belong in other categories. So reviewers have to move them, sometimes ignorant folk move them back, and it just creates more needless work. VanTucky Talk 03:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the difference in work between recategorizing an article in the Miscellaneous section, and recategorizing an article that has been wrongly categorized. The need for this section is marginal at best. Geometry guy 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say keep the section. With no "Miscellaneous category" people will just try and guess and there will be misplaced articles everywhere.  Yamanbaiia 10:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More trouble than it's worth? 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Canadian Paul as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 20th October 2007. Canadian Paul is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Canadian Paul2. Derek.cashman3. Awadewit4. Yamanbaiia5. Zeus1234. Epbr123 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Goin' for a streak there, eh, Paul? ;-) Congrats! Dr. Cash 17:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What!? I didn't even make the list this time. I have to step up my game here! VanTucky Talk 21:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 20/10/2007 

message: I've signed up to review my first article.  What I'm finding is that I could fix many of the writing problems in the article I'm reviewing, but that seems counter to the idea that reviews should not have significantly contributed to an article.  The one I'm reviewing needs a thorough copyedit.  So, do I edit and say "Now it's OK", or do I fail the nom and say "but now it's fixed and someone else can do the review"?  What are my options, and which ones are preferred in this situation? --EncycloPetey 03:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "don't review articles you've significantly contributed to" rule only applies before the article goes under review. Minor fixes (my rule for "minor" is generally that it would take me less time to fix them than to explain what needs to be fixed) are perfectly acceptable. Larger ones are technically acceptable, I suppose, although I'm not sure why you wouldn't get the nominator to do the tougher work themsleves. Also, you can put the article on hold for up to seven days to allow for changes to be made, the article does not have to be failed immediately if there are changes to be made. Cheers, CP 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If an article is in mostly good shape except for a couple of minor spelling or grammatical fixes, or even a WP:MOS issue, I just fix it and promote. So minor copyediting is perfectly acceptable. However, if I start doing too many of these, indicating that the article is in need of a more thorough copyedit, I'll stop and either place the article on hold or fail it outright. Just remember to keep with minor copyediting, spelling, and grammatical issues ... if you start adding major content sections, then you're going too far. Dr. Cash 06:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First review query 

message: This is currently listed for review under "Misc", but reading the article I'm not convinced it is notable. Any opinions before I take it to AfD? EyeSereneTALK 11:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the previous debate and in no way WP:HEY applies. Everything has been said in the article about this guy's life and it's just not worthy enough for Wikipedia. wait what??? it's on the main page!! please delete the article before more people go into it!! he just got his résumé featured in Wikipedia's main page!!!! --Yamanbaiia 12:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous debate appears ridiculous. Keep without a single person arguing for it being kept? Another AfD of DRv's in order.. Wizardman 12:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Aril 8 it had a "Notability" tag removed by ... User:Dheitner ! PamD 12:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks all, that's good enough for me. DRV it is ;) EyeSereneTALK 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notabiltiy of [[Darren Heitner]] 

message: There was some discussion about which category this article would be best suited to, on the homeopathy talk page, since we don't want to list it more than once, I thought a note here would bring it to more people's attention. Tim Vickers 21:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't we just create an Alternative medicine category on the nominations page? There are plenty of other possible candidates to fit into it. VanTucky Talk 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under which topic? Geometry guy 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Health and medicine. I really don't see how it shouldn't go there in the first place. People may argue about how safe or effective the practice is, but it's inarguably dealing with health. VanTucky Talk 22:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might want to visit the talk page. The problem is that "health and medicine" is listed under "natural sciences", but the consensus is that homeopathy is unscientific. For me, that is not a compelling argument about where it should be listed, but we are dealing with a controversial article here... Geometry guy 22:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see. Well, the listing category on the Good Article nominations page doesn't have any impact on the neutrality of the article. This seems like undue nitpicking to me. VanTucky Talk 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure is, but they will sort it out: there are some good editors there. Geometry guy 22:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been renominated so soon? Sheesh.... Homestarmy 00:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a great deal of work done on the article recently.  I'm not saying so because I did the work (I didn't) but because I watch the page. Wanderer57 02:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll admit that it does seem to be somewhat more stable. Homestarmy 15:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Homeopathy]] nomination 

message: The article's nomination for GA status is lying there for ages. Is there anyway that can speed up the process a bit? Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yunus hasn't even been up there for a month yet. There are many nominations that have been there for 40+ days. The article will be gotten to in due course. Cheers, CP 15:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Muhammad Yunus]] gone dead? 

message: I have been reading GA reviews and rules for ages, and last week i decided to be BOLD and start reviewing, but now i got some negative feedback after failing Hard Candy (film) (talk). I take GA reviewing very seriously and i really thought i was being thorough, but maybe i should step back for a while. I'd like to get some opinions about my reviews please, here are some of them: Animal Liberation Front (on hold), Barbara Gordon (passed)Yamanbaiia 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your review of Hard Candy is fair and correct.  I would have failed it also.  Some of your points could be seen as subjective, especially to editors who are not familiar with all of our policies; it helps to wikilink the corresponding policy or guideline that drives each of your comments.  You handled the interaction well by suggesting a reassessment before the disagreement got out of hand. --Bloodzombie 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to be more precise next time, pointing out all pertinent rules and policies. Thanks! Yamanbaiia 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at your review for Hard Candy, I would not be worried at all Yamanbaila. That was extremely rude, and is not a legitimate objection to your obviously cogent points. They didn't say, "I think you're acting subjectively outside policy and should reconsider". They just made ad hominems, apparently because they were sensitive about your suggestions for improving things. Hang in there, we all appreciate your hard work! VanTucky Talk 01:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my thoughts, as well. Good work! Wrad 01:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for taking a look. Yamanbaiia 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review the reviewer 

message: Maybe it would be helpful to editors—when they are writing an article—to tell them to leave the Lead to last, as it is a summary. I know this looks/feels strange when you are working on an article, but it makes writing the Lead an easy thing to do when you are ready to submit. How many times have you seen references in an introduction/preface in a book? :)--andreasegde 04:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly one way of looking at it. Although in my experience, I often see the lead section as a mini article in itself, and I find it helpful to write a good lead section first, then expand the main topics mentioned in the lead into the article itself, which is somewhat backwards from your suggestions. But whatever works best, I suppose. If the lead needs significant work, I usually direct editors to WP:LEAD. Dr. Cash 07:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Canadian Paul as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 27th October 2007. Canadian Paul is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Canadian Paul2. Derek.cashman3. Esprit15d4. Awadewit5. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage. Epbr123 11:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third week in a row for Canadian Paul! Now he's challenging my streak,... ;-) Congrats! Dr. Cash 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats to all, since we've got the backlog back under 200! Cheers, CP 04:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, yeah, good work. I am considering starting to review again. :) IvoShandor 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so I did one. Woot. IvoShandor 11:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The criteria are fairly simple, as long as there is an r in the month: if the week begins in an even month then the reviewer of the week is Canadian Paul; if it begins in an odd month, then the reviewer of the week is Derek.cashman. Unfortunately, there was an error on 8th September (which should probably be taken to GAR/ROTW), and I'm not yet sure what happens if there is not an r in the month. I guess we will have to cross that hurdle next May. Geometry guy 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation Epbr! VanTucky Talk 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 27/10/2007 

message: Just wondering if there's a time limit under which Good article nominations must be reviewed before they are de-listed?  If not, what's the longest a nomination has languished before being addressed?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to think that some of waht's up now has to be close to a record, I doubt things used to hang around for 1.5 months. Wizardman 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really are curious, you could browse through all the diffs at the bot-updated GAN report. That has a listing of all the oldest unreviewed articles, with and without "under review" tags. VanTucky Talk 01:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, they can't be de-listed if they have not been given GA status. They just languish in the nether regions of B-class articles until some plucky soul reviews them. What I find irritating is that after a GA fail, a lot of articles are put straight back on the list, with a few minor improvements (hoping for a kind reviewer). There should be a time limit stating how long it is allowed before they are put back on the list. Nobody can fix the problems in an article in a few days, and they should fully understand why it failed in the first place—meaning why did they put it up for a GA review in the first place when they didn't know the rules/procedure?) --andreasegde 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time limit 

message: The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]] Newsletter for November 2007 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 3rd November 2007. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Blnguyen2. Derek.cashman3. VanTucky4. Canadian Paul5. Dihydrogen Monoxide. Epbr123 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! It's an odd-numbered month again... what happened?!?! Just kidding! ;-) Congrats Blnguyen! Dr. Cash 06:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 3/11/2007 

message: put this article on hold as almost ready, but the author asked me to come and look at it anyway. Personally, I would strongly fail the article for lack of RS, lack of a lead and FU images without specific rationale. Can someone look at this please, since this is likely to end in controversy in any case. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A agree with your assessment.  I would barely rate this article as a Start-class. --Bloodzombie 04:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just took a look at that article myself, and it doesn't even come close to pretty much any of the criteria (except maybe the stability criterion). I'd agree on assessing it Start-class. it's got a long ways to go. Dr. Cash 06:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely a fail, has a long way to go. Large uncited patches, poorly written in places and needs major expansion. Also note that "Criticism" and/or "Controversy" sections are not kosher per WP:NPOV. If it passes I'd be inclined to take it to reassessment. VanTucky Talk 06:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN [[Nicktropolis]] 

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

message: (This topic may be covered somewhere in the GA guidelines, but if so, I didn't see it...) While nominating an article for GA status, I noticed the big backlog and figured I could help. The thing is, I don't know much (or anything, in some cases) about the vast majority of nominated articles. So I reviewed (and passed) a solid entry on a Beatles song, but have yet to review anything else.
What's the general feeling on this? Should GA reviewers have at least cursory knowledge of a subject, or is it OK to jump into articles expecting to be taught? My thinking is that if a reviewer goes in not knowing anything about the topic, the article may leave out important info or have a biased POV which might not be caught.
Your thoughts...? Zeng8r 13:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tell you what I think, because there are two sides to it. A reviewer who knows little about a topic is a good thing because it is a reflection of what a reader will perceive when they read an article. Most people searching Wikipedia do so because they lack knowledge on a topic. The downside of having little knowledge of a subject is that factual accuracy could be off or the key viewpoints of an important scholar in a field could be omitted without a reviewer knowing about it. I think its a good thing because I think most of the concerns that come up with it are more relevant at FA than they are at GA. Just my thoughts.IvoShandor 14:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Knowing little about the topic can also be good to see what needs to be put in context. I've read some articles that were beautifully written and excellent in every way, except I had no idea what was going on because the article presumed that I knew what all the terms meant, what the political situation was at the time etc. etc. If I had been an "expert" on the subject beforehand, that's something I might not have noticed, and a good article that's nearly unreadable to the layman is worse than a good article that makes mistakes with a few (emphasis on a few) technical details. After all, Wikipedia clearly states that it shouldn't be used as a source. A reader may not leave the article with a perfect understanding, but it's better than having them leave with no understanding at all. If you're worried about POV, check the citations. If it says that so and so was loved by all, or so and so was the best game of all time, it had better be backed up well, as that's easily challengeable. If I see something glowing or harsh, I always ask whether anything opposite was written and then see the response, which usually hints at the bias of the nominator as well. Just my two incoherent cents in the morning. Cheers, CP 16:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good advice. I'd also add that, regarding POV, my personal rule of thumb is that if I come away from reading an article without being able to guess where the author(s) sympathies lie, it's probably sufficiently NPOV. Regarding content, that (as I was informed recently) is what A-class review is for, when an article is checked over by subject specialists. Nothing to stop you doing this too if you know about the subject, but as far as criterion 3 goes I think often all we can look for is that a reader comes away with an idea (not necessarily a full understanding) of what the subject is about and why it's notable. As Canadian Paul says, occasionally this will mean requesting additional context for certain things, which may be easier if we know little about a subject, but we can't be expected to catch stuff that's omitted altogether. That's the beauty of Wikipedia though - eventually someone will ;) EyeSereneTALK 18:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA reviews and personal expertise 

message: that is the question with Theory of Colours. Tarret has had it on hold since the 23rd, and no action was taken after the 2nd opinion was duly given by EyeSerene. Should we just fail it as an expired hold? VanTucky Talk 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article has been listed since forever, but i don't see the need to step over Tarret, he's only 3 days behind. I think that if he doesn't reappear in a few more days then "Theory" should be failed.Yamanbaiia 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say fail - there are heaps of issues that can't all be dealt with in the time given (and it's already gone over). — H2O —  05:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To fail or not to fail... 

message: Looks like it's going to pass, but I've decided to drop a comment there, since it seems to not be very neutral. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN [[Pat Nixon]] 

message: Looking at the nominated Political positions of Ron Paul, I am tempted to fail the article as an obvious violation of NPOV. Fair treatment is only one half of NPOV, the other is representing all significant points of view on a subject. The article currently is a laundry list of statements by Paul, with no substantial commentary from secondary, independent sources. Every candidate says, I'm for this or against that. But there is almost always a contradiction from opposition. Currently, I think this article reads like a campaign pamphlet by Paul supporters. However, I would like a second opinion on this before I decide if I'm going to fail it. VanTucky Talk 01:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I support Ron Paul, I mean really really support Ron Paul, this article is clearly not a GA, and NPOV isn't the first thing that comes to mind for me. All I need to see is the size of that lead compared to the size of the article to know this article is in no way compliant with WP:LEAD. You could quick-fail for blatant NPOV violations if you can build the case for it, but i'd go with the lead violation myself :/. Homestarmy 01:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a non-American disinterested outsider looking at this (I neither know nor care who Ron Paul is), I can see POV problems with it. It lacks balance. The contentious word "contrarian" put me on notice. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: The article's contributors have filed an RFC on the matter disputing. VanTucky Talk 23:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Err, did we steer you wrong Van? Sorry about that....Do they know that GA/R is the right place for disputing this? Homestarmy 00:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Were you asking me for my opinion? I'm sorry, I was paying attention to someone else. Is there a problem regarding the RfC? Good friend100 01:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not big deal, no worries anyone. Feel free to chime in there, of course. VanTucky Talk 01:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV quick-fail? 

message: User:Andreasegde wants everyone to know that the nominator for this article has been up for longer than a month, a comment that does not belong on the main project talk page. As a response, I point out that many articles have been up for longer than a month (one of mine was actually up for almost two months!), that there are some articles ahead of yours in the "queque" and that there are two lists for GA Reviewers to look at to see which articles have been up for longer than a month, therefore we do not need to be reminded which articles have been up there for a long time. I don't mean to be rude, but we're doing our best, and please consider that this is an entirely voluntary job within the voluntary job that is Wikipedia, right in the middle of time when many people are in the middle of tests and papers at their educational institutions. Cheers, CP 16:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation, CP (the article is at the top of the list, though..) I won't put the comment back, and I do appreciate the voluntary work that reviewers do. Cheers, --andreasegde 16:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim and Mary McCartney 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 10th November 2007. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Blnguyen2. Canadian Paul3. VanTucky4. Derek.cashman5. Kane5187. Epbr123 12:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't beat yourself up! You've been dealing with your RfA. Next week. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: OMG! I'm slippin'! Congrats Blnguyen! Dr. Cash 04:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats Blnguyen! Can't imagine how you managed to pull yourself away from Moraff's World to do all those reviews though... haha! Cheers, CP 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, well I don't have a copy of Moraff's on my PC. It used to be on a 5 1/2 which doesnt go on any modern machines anymore. But anyway, I can download for free can't I? Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 10/11/2007 

message: Talk:Alpha Kappa Alpha. I am a bit concerned about the official history book of AKA being used, but it has been pointed out that there is a nother fraternity that does the same thing and it is FA. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely willing to trawl through the whole article but if the official history book is being used to cite non-controversial and objective material, it should be good enough for GA I would think. By the way, is it customary to use the birth date and age template for fraternities and sororities? Cheers, CP 21:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the official history book a self-published source? If it's not vetted through an independent publishing house, it's unsuitable to use. Even if there is a precedent for that type of source, this particular book must be evaluated on its own. VanTucky Talk 21:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Official history books are not citing controversial material. The official history books are the only documents available to showcase history of Alpha Kappa Alpha, as with Alpha Phi Alpha. The controversy section is neutral, since the controversy section comes from sources such as CNN and independent newspapers. The sorority's history book is published by the sorority. However, I have placed facts from other sorority's history books to neutralize the article. Miranda 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter if they are called official by the organization. Self-published sources are not conducive to factually accuracy, and using sps is something you should be working hard to avoid, not defend using. Self-published sources may be used for uncontroversial and self-referential facts, but it's not to be encouraged. In articles that are supposed to be GA or FA class, it's especially poor form. If there's absolutely no other way of verifying content, then so be it. As to your neutrality comments, I was not asserting that it was non-neutral, only that using self-published sources is strongly discouraged by policy. VanTucky Talk 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I looked up some of the books and it has ISBN #. Is that a good sign? Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I delisted it. It seems Ivo is on extended and indefinite break... and unfortauntely it might be a real one this time. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opinion 

message: I just noticed that if you check it out at the GAN report or other areas, we're back above 200 nominations. VanTucky Talk 19:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someday people will realize that if they don't review articles, no one is going to review theirs. Have faith in the system, someday... Yamanbaiia 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The system is down! Yep, it's definitely a problem. I really like the idea of having a system for quickfails. Basically just burning through the articles quickly in a mass collaboration every week to determine what is clearly not GA and get it out of here fast. Wrad 21:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally try and sweep for quick-fails regularly. It would seriously help if everyone followed the instructions and gave an edit summary with a link to their newly nom'd article. That way I wouldn't have to crawl through the whole page looking for new noms. Ah, but of course, c'est la vie VanTucky Talk 21:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go back to doing GANs, since I've been devoting my time to sweeps. My section of sweeps made up of about 60 articles is almost done, and when it is completed I'll come back and knock off some more reviews later this week. --Nehrams2020 21:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we can boycott people who nominate a lot and never review and see what they do. In the end though, the veterans will always have to put more back in since they are the ones who have developed the understanding of what a GA actually is. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll review. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: All complaining aside, the notion of boycotting those who want to nominate but not review is not only deeply inequitable, it's a practical impossibility. GA would collapse. VanTucky Talk 04:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It wasnt particularly serious, although I would hope that people who have submitted 5+ successful articles would help review, since they would have a good idea. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 04:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered why you'd say that Blng. Sorry for any confusion. VanTucky Talk 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: When you say automation, are you referring to say, the GA template automatically adding names to WP:GA? Cutting down the preliminary and closing steps to GAC would be great. But automating actual reviews? Not so hot in my view. VanTucky Talk 01:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From earlier discussions here and ongoing ones elsewhere, this would only refer to automating the donkey-work (listings and multiple page updates), not reviews. The best argument (and IMO the only really defensible one) for automated reviews is for use as an editor self-checking tool prior to submission to a formal review process. EyeSereneTALK 17:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on the last point. Thanks for the explanation! VanTucky Talk 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is what I meant: sorry for not answering sooner. It is a mistake (IMO) to use automation as a substitute for what humans are good at: judgement of complex issues. Automation should only be used for mundane and/or repetetive tasks (where humans are not so reliable ;) In this case, automatic listing at GAN and GA are definitely on the agenda, but automatic reviews are not! Geometry guy 21:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I suggest reviewers leave a standard statement plugging the need for GA reviewers at the end of their good article reviews, especially for those articles that pass (make GA)? Perhaps something like "If you have found this process helpful, please consider reviewing an article (or two) that you have not edited?" (linked to WP:GAN) As someone who has had 3 articles rated GA and only just done his first review (another to follow soon), I think this would have encouraged me to review sooner. Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 01:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A nice idea. Such a statement could be added to some of the review templates such as  (see also the discussion below). Geometry guy 19:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slipping 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 17th November 2007. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Blnguyen2. Canadian Paul3. Derek.cashman4. Yamanbaiia5. Elcobbola. Epbr123 (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, congrats once more! Also, congrats to everyone, as all of the articles under the "oldest untouched nominations" backlog are less than 30 days old now! You'll all have an easier time for the next week or two, as I'm going to be taking a break from reviewing GA articles. The main reason is that I won't be on Wikipedia at all Wednesday through Sunday (at least), so it wouldn't be fair to start new reviews with up to a seven day hold. Cheers, CP 03:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 17/11/2007 

message: This anon nominated 11 articles last night: Metatron, Sodom and Gomorrah, Stade Français, Sergey Brin, Google bomb, Autophagy, Nemertea, Dopamine and Hydraulic conductivity. He also nominated The Shakespeare Code and  Blue Harvest (Family Guy), but they were removed by Sceptre. They are all missing the GAN tag on the discussion page, the anon has not contrbuted to any of the articles and they all seem to be pretty inactive, so any "on hold" would be useless. Should all of them be removed? this nominations don't seem serious. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're supposed to be registered to nominate, so they all should be removed. Homestarmy (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, i've removed them -Yamanbaiia (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed TSC as a quick-fail because it's nowhere near what's expected for a DW GA. I did the same to Blue Harvest as it was right underneath it. Will (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Eh? I nominated those articles because I thought it was the best step to getting some feedback I could work with. Chris Chaucer (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominating a dozen articles at once puts a serious strain on the resources of this project. A review, if done properly, usually takes 30 minutes to an hour, assuming that the article is not quickfailed, whether or not the end result is pass, hold or fail. Please take into consideration that many volunteers here spend their considerable talents here reviewing the works of others, and that there is already a giant (200+) backlog despite our best efforts. Throwing a dozen more articles into the mix is not inconsequential. Further, and of course I cannot speak for others on this, but I know that I will not be performing my usual (one per day) number of reviews due to the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, and I suspect that other reviewers, prolific or otherwise, may not be either. We don't mind reviewing articles and giving comments for improvement (or at least I don't), but asking us to do twelve at once without the ability to do any of your own (as GA review prevents anonymous users from performing reviews for various non-anti-anon reasons) is a little unreasonable, at least in my mind. I suggest nominating one or two at a time and understanding that it may take up to a month before the articles get reviews; that's just the nature of the project. Sometimes I see something that I really want to review and review it a day after it was nominated. Other articles aren't so lucky. But every article is gotten to, sooner or later. Cheers, CP 04:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely agree with what CP said. The basic point also to remember is: if you were just looking for feedback to improve upon, that is what a peer review is for. This process is for rating and recognizing content that already should be up to a certain standard of quality. VanTucky Talk 05:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that peer reviews are geared towards articles that are already “high developed” and progressing towards FA status.  If you’re just looking for some feedback, you might want to post the articles on the Requests for Feedback page.  If, however, you truly believe the articles are candidates for GA status, then, by all means, post them here.  I’m not sure we want to discourage the process by limiting GA nominations; if you have a legitimate candidate, list it.  We’ll get to it eventually.  It just has to be understood that, as Canadian Paul said, there will likely be a significant delay before the nominations are reviewed. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 05:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Special:Contributions/172.194.181.36|172.194.181.36]] 

message: Silent Hill 4: The Room has been on hold by Macys123 for 13 days, and the reviewer has yet to review it again. Is it to be dropped by default or can I request a second opinion? --Lenin and McCarthy  |  (Complain here) 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to contact the user, but to no avail. I'm not sure what other people think, but I think that a second review is in order personally, just because the original one doesn't seem to be very helpful. Cheers, CP 03:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silent Hill 4: The Room 

message: I've modified  to allow comments after the individual items' ranking. (There's also a way to do easy overview comments before the individual items.) So now  is available for anyone who wants to use it as a tool for Quick-N-EZ GA reviews. Cheers! – Scartol · Talk 17:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work! Thanks Scartol. VanTucky Talk 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, thanks! It seems to me though, that this extension is compatible with , so a new template is not needed. We could also give  the same treatment to further encourage reviewers to comment on the tick boxes. I'm willing to do that, but let me know if I have missed something. Geometry guy 19:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're all very welcome. GG, are you suggesting we just combine them all into one template? Or make  and  the same template? Or what? – Scartol · Talk 21:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make  and  the same template, i.e., update  so it works like , and delete . Also  could be updated with the commenting feature of . Geometry guy 21:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll combine GALists 2 and 3. As for , you can use comments on it already. Basically, anything you type comes out, whether it's "Pass" or "Fail" or "Pass. You have some good images, but…" or whatever. The only difference between it and GAList3 is that GAList3 is all formatted nice and has the fancy pictures. – Scartol • Tok 21:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may be referring to  and .  is much like , although there is only scope to add one comment per numbered item here, rather than one for each criterion (1a, 1b etc.). Let me know if you want help merging GAList3 into GAList2 (e.g., I can make page moves preserving the edit histories if that would be helpful.) Geometry guy 21:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right. Sorry. If you want, I can add the comment feature to GAList, but it'll have to wait until later. I made GAList2 like GAList3 was, and put a SpeedyDelete-author tag on GAList3. Now I can go back to reverting Balzac vandalism. – Scartol • Tok 23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I've deleted GAList3. If you db-auth the /doc subpage at some point, I (or someone else) will delete that too. Good luck with the counter-vandalism work. If I have a moment tomorrow, I will tweak . Geometry guy 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAList3 is now available 

message: Heya, I put six noms on the page, but lest ye think I am spamming ye: one is my own article, and five are the (relatively) best from when I assessed 70 or so articles for WkiProject Ethnic groups. I'll try to review an article a week or so for the next six weeks or so, to make up the diff. Later! --Ling.Nut (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six noms on page; will try to review some... 

message: that the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy article should probably be failed as instable. It recognizes right from the start that it's about an unfinished legal dispute. What do y'all think? VanTucky talk 23:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it depends on how you’re approaching instability.  If you’re interpreting the quick-fail criterion regarding edit wars to mean that unstable topics shouldn’t pass, I’m not sure that would be appropriate.  Articles about “unconcluded” (the language in the article - not a real word, by the way) issues, however, are inherently lacking a major aspect of the topic.  Thus, with that phrasing alone, the article already has issues with 1A and 3A.  I wouldn’t quick fail the article, but I would likely fail it “at the normal speed”. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 23:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. VanTucky talk 00:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm thinking... 

message: Where is the section for Biographies? I'll try to nominate one. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs)  09:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't one: most biographies are listed under the main subject to which the person contributed: on WP:GA there is often a separate listing for people (e.g. artists) who have contributed to a particular subject (e.g art). I hope you will also consider reviewing an article (in a similar area, for example). Good luck! Geometry guy 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I got your point. --βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs)  07:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I will try 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen VanTucky as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 24th November 2007. VanTucky is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. VanTucky2. Blnguyen3. Canadian Paul4. Yamanbaiia5. Tovojolo. Epbr123 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WAAaaaaa, second week in a row that i'm on the list! I'd like to thank the November 2007 strikes in France, without you, dear strike, this wouldn't be happening.  -Yamanbaiia (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this must be a slow week. I hardly expected to be the top reviewer with less than a dozen! Good work everyone. VanTucky talk 02:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It must have been a REALLY slow week. I didn't even do any reviews and I still got third place! Nice work keeping down the fort everyone! Cheers, CP 06:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 24/11/2007 

message: The reviewer, User:Chesdovi, didn't leave a review in the article's talk page, plus, he has contributed extensively to the article. I don't think it's fair to Tefillin's editors for us to fail the article only because the reviewer dissapear. Re-nominate? -Yamanbaiia (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that User:Chesdovi didn't contribute significantly to the article before the nomination (the pre-nomination edits are contained in this diff), so I don't see a conflict of interest here: it is good when reviewers help to fix problems. Also, the article doesn't need to be renominated because it is still a nomination. However, nothing has happened on article talk for a month, so I've removed the "OnHold" so that another reviewer can review the article. (The GAN page is not the place to hold discussions about an article.) Geometry guy 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, my bad, it's just that he had marked the article as "being reviewed by" on Nov the 7th, and when i saw all those edits from October...i guess now i understand that discussion over at GAN. Thanks. Yamanbaiia (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tefillin]], 17 days on hold 

message: I looked at all the categories and cannot find a category to put Henry Allingham in. Can someone put the nomination in the correct category? --Kaypoh (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed him under war and military and, since I am familiar with the article without having contributed to it significantly, have decided to review it later today. Cheers, CP 15:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which category to put [[Henry Allingham]]? 

message: Why do we list subsubtopics on this page? Surely it is enough to separate GANs into the topic and subtopic. The further subdivisions are different from those at GA, and don't seem to serve a useful purpose. I think they should be removed. What do others think? Geometry guy 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup - either that or bring them into line with GA, but the simpler the better in my view. EyeSereneTALK 18:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll do this later today, unless there are any objections. Geometry guy 11:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. There may be a temporary inconvenience to reviewers, as articles under review have been resorted. Apologies for this, but I hope that the simpler set-up will prove to be more convenient in the long-run (e.g., for identifying older nominations needing review). Geometry guy 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsubtopics 

message: When an article's been promoted to GA is it kosher to go into the project tags and bump up the rating or is one supposed to notify the project or what? Seems odd to have articles with mixed ratings. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you do that, and add the  template, but like this . <DREAMAFTER><TALK> 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even better yet, Template:ArticleHistory. Usually it's not kosher to play with the ratings of the Wikiprojects unless you're a project member, but since the author to promote articles to GA or FA status rests solely in the hands of the respective departments, there's no problem. Start and B Grades and importance ratings can vary from project to project (with WP:CANADA, I tend to expect a lot before I give out a B, and I can think of at least one project that I've never seen give a Low importance rating), which is why only project members should be changing those. GA and FA standards are "universal" (at least in theory), so you can subjectively apply them to an entire article. Cheers, CP 05:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once an article's promoted 

message: The above WikiProject has 7 articles nominated at WP:GAN.
* Randy Orton 
* WrestleMania III 
* Don Kent (wrestler) 
* Amy Dumas 
* Mickie James
* Royal Rumble (1994) 
* Briscoe Brothers 
If someone is interested in reviewing the articles, please do so; as members of the WikiProject to not want to review the articles, because of accusations of conflict of interest. Lex  T/C Guest Book  17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't regard it as a conflict of interest for a member of a WikiProject to review an article written by others in the WikiProject, as long as the reviewer has not contributed significantly to the article in question prior to the nomination. All reviews should be based on the criteria, not on personal interest in the article. Sometimes an article needs a reviewer with some expertise in the subject. Other times, though, it is more helpful to have some outside input, so thanks for commenting here. Geometry guy 10:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with G'guy on this; I have to admit that the 'not reviewing articles from a WikiProject one belongs to' is advice I routinely ignore :) I can understand why it's there, but IMO it's based on the false premise that such articles will be simply nodded through. I think in practice most of us would want areas in which we work to have only the best articles - there is more incentive for quality reviews, not less. EyeSereneTALK 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional Wrestling|Pro Wrestling WikiProject]] 

message: Hello all, I've nominated this article for GA as I think it is ready. Even though I know only one of you will do the actual review I would welcome all of you to come along to the article, have a read and let me know on the talk page of any improvements needed or any of your own thoughts relating to the material/style etc. Thanks everyone, I would really appreciate this!  LordHarris 08:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Winston Churchill]] 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Nehrams2020 as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 1st December 2007. Nehrams2020 is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Nehrams20202. Canadian Paul3. Awadewit4. Drewcifer30005. Dihydrogen Monoxide. Epbr123 11:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 1/12/2007 

message: Shouldn't the article nominations be in an alphabetical order? --andreasegde (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The older nominations have to receive more attention first. Alientraveller (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean the title/headers for the article groupings. At the moment "Law" is before "Film and cinema". --andreasegde (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was an error caused by the recent split of "Media" into "Film" and "Television and journalism". There is a related discussion at WT:GA#Correct section?. I agree, they should be in alphabetical order, but am unconvinced that "Film" should actually be a subtopic of "Social sciences and society" at all. First and foremost, film is an artform, and should be listed with "Theatre" under "Arts". Geometry guy 19:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Home Alone, "arts" indeed. Hmmm. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: -) Or (perhaps more topically) Turner prize and  bear. Geometry guy 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The headers should be in alphabetical order - it doesn't matter what the sub-sections are, but they should be alphabetically sorted as well. --andreasegde (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The order of the top-level topics is a long-standing tradition used in several places. In particular, the order here, follows WP:GA and WP:0.5, and is used in multiple other places. If you want to change it here, you have to change it in all these other places. I'm not convinced that this is worth the effort. Geometry guy 19:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but that's the first time I have seen an editor write that it will be "a waste of time and effort". What are we here for exactly? What's the point, unless it is to get it right? :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really see the point either, but if you want to re-order everything go ahead. It will be a big job though. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabet 

message: The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles]] Newsletter for December 2007 

message: Went to review this article and found that it had already been passed by User:Vikrant Phadkay with the following summary:
Good language, content, sourcing and images. GA passed. Vikrant Phadkay 14:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about the formalities; feel free to overturn it, put it on hold, and write your thoughts on the talkpage and we'll see if we can put them to good use. — Deckiller 06:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can boldly delist, if you wish.  No need to add to the GAR backlog. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK great. I figured as much, I just didn't want to cause a stir by doing it without at least some general agreement. Will get to reviewing it soon. Cheers, CP 23:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Walker (Star Wars)]] 

message: There is currently 38 articles in this section waiting to be reviewed. To my shock, I notice that one user (TonyTheTiger) has nominated nineteen articles, half of the articles in that section alone! This, in my view is an abuse of the GAN process, and putting an enormous strain on the GAN project. Ninetten is a huge number, and I personally believe they should all be removed until the backlog has gone down (or been cleared completely). I wouldn't mnid if someone had four or five on there, but nineteen is just putting a enormous strain on the project. The GAN report clearly shows he is abusing the process. Davnel03 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you know, we're having a more general discussion about this two threads up and your opinions on the matter as a whole would be welcome there. Cheers, CP 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GAN#Sports and recreation|Sports and recreation]] section 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 8th December 2007. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Dihydrogen Monoxide2. Canadian Paul3. The Rambling Man4. Derek.cashman5. Elcobbola. Epbr123 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! I'm back in the list again! ;-) Congrats DHMO! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too!  Yay! And well done to H2O.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  *takes a bow* :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give you a run for your money again later this month when I have my winter break. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on summer break - bring it on! — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well deserved. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Er? Uh? Summer break? Dr. Cash (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, in Australia it's summer now. I've been off since my birthday (Dec 1), and am off until late January. And thanks Metal Head :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 8/12/2007 

message: Any thoughts? I put the article on hold exactly a week ago now, and I feel a sufficient number of references have been provided (which was the reason for putting on hold), however there are still some issues I need a second-opinion on, like the sports sections lack of sources for example. If you need any other information, don't hesitate to ask. Regards, — Rudget Talk  18:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd AGF and pass it, with a note that the sports section could do with more sourcing (the articles linked too might be able to cover that). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yeah I'm going to pass it now. The sports section has been rewrote and referenced. Good work by all the parties. — Rudget Contributions 13:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Virginia]] 

message: Those who know my views will know that I am very much in favour of reviewers giving editors a chance to fix issues with GANs. I am also in favour of multiple editors contributing to a review (even if that is not very realistic when the backlog is so large), as long as one reviewer takes responsibility for the final decision. What I am against, however, is bureaucracy, and I believe that the templates , ,  and  are at best marginally useful, and at worst, rampant instruction creep.
At the moment, to put an article on hold, a reviewer has to do three things: add comments to the talk page, replace  by  on the talk page, and replace (or augment?)  by  at GAN. Similarly, requesting a second opinion requires three actions: commenting on what the issues of uncertainty are, replacing  (or ) by  on the talk page, and replacing (or augmenting)  by  at GAN. What is the point of signalling the same action three times? Or, to adopt the paradigm of WP:CREEP, what problem is this intended to solve?
Surely, from the point of view of reviewers, articles are "on hold" as soon as someone adds a  template to the nomination, and stay that way until the review is complete and the article is listed or failed. From the point of view of nominators, "on hold" is a chance to fix problems, so it suffices for the reviewer to list the problems on the talk page and give the nominator and other editors a time limit. Similarly, if you need a second opinion, why not simply list the issues, and remove the  template from GAN, so that another reviewer can review the article, using your review as a starting point?
This is not a perfect replacement for the multi-template approach, but it is so much simpler. The "on-hold"/"second opinion" processes are major contributors to the length of this thread. I understand that regular reviewers may enjoy keeping track of articles with this elaborate system of templates, but they add considerably to the list of instructions at GAN, and surely put off other editors becoming new reviewers. Encouraging new reviewers is, in my view, is the only way to solve the ongoing backlog crisis. Geometry guy 21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Second you completely. There are too many steps for no useful benefit. As you say, removing the GA Review template is the equivalent of signaling a second review. And, the GA Hold makes no sense to me. Using the GA Review template with a note if things will be delayed should be satisfactory. Basically, Good Article review is a place where editors ask the question: "Is this any good?" GA reviewers have only three possible replies: "Yup", "Nope", and 'Hey, this is pretty good but you've got to do a bit more. Go for it." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't disagree more strongly. Those templates, and sticking to the steps, are what makes reviewing with GA a workable (and thus, enjoyable) system for me. I suspect I am not alone. Without these templates, it would be simply impossible. I'd just have to create new ones. There is a learning curve with any Wikipedia process, this is a given. Currently, GAN is far less bureaucratic than many other processes. If you want to encourage new reviewers, place a big banner at the top of the page or send out a message on the mailing lists. In other words, advertise. But altering the system to make it unfamiliar to even the veteran reviewers isn't going to help things any. VanTucky talk 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do they make it workable? What problem do they solve? If you believe GA is less bureaucratic than many other processes, I suspect you may not have read the thread I mentioned above. Critics have called GA "one of the worst examples of instruction creep on Wikipedia". I would like to counter the critics with a forthright and robust defence, but I find myself unable to do so with a clear conscience at the moment. Geometry guy 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not waste my time pandering to critics of the system who do not care to be constructive (Note that I'm not speaking of you here at all). Those who are willing to sit back and take pot shots at a working article assessment wing without truly engaging in a process of improvement are less than worthless, they are a hindrance. In the mean time, I have articles to review. Taking away the templates and things I need to do so would only hinder that process. For example: the idea of taking away formalized holds. This is a poor idea because it is largely based on the ability of editors to assume that an article is "on hold", or to garner all they need from an informal "the article is on hold" statement from a reviewer. Without a template, which precisely sets the date for the hold period and puts the hold solidly in motion, holds may be easily missed or confused, and reviews will be disrupted by needless quarreling over the  mechanics of a hold. As for the instruction creep commentary, anyone who thinks an in-depth process of review and assessment isn't going to need detailed instructions is living in a fantasy. My motto is get over it and get to work. This constant rehashing of the same discussion doesn't build a quality encyclopedia. VanTucky talk 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  here.  In my experience I have found all of the above templates to be quite useful, both when doing GA Reviews myself, and when on the receiving end of a GA Review on an article I had worked on.  Cirt (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: all of these templates bar one, were only created in September this year. They are not part of any long-standing tradition, and I'm still completely unconvinced they are worth the effort they cause: three edits each time! They are a solution in search of a problem. The only template that the above arguments support is the talk page on-hold template. If reviewers are not able to articulate to editors of an article that they have a chance to fix it, then, sure, they can have a template to help them, but there is no reason for it to be part of process any more that  is. It is good to see that others agree that the instructions for this process are detailed and complicated. They don't need to be: other similar processes manage with far less complexity.  Geometry guy 11:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Chalk me up as another disagree.  WP:CREEP is a supplement to WP:BURO and is, therefore, essentially just elaboration – poorly worded, at that.  Hold and Second Opinion templates are optional tools whose use is by no means “legislated”.  Their meaning is transparent, their functionality is simple and they have been for me, and, apparently others, of great value.  WP:CREEP does not apply here.  Further, making three (or two, if you’re efficient) edits is hardly a burden. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree, after reading Derek's part, I couldn't second anything more confidently. — Rudget Contributions 13:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? You were logged in as Geometry guy, but then logged in as Ling.Nut? It doesn't say on your userpage that you have an alternate account? Or am I missing something? — Rudget Contributions 14:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hi Rudget, that bit was a joke. ;-) the rest was not. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a long-running joke that Ling is a sock of mine, as he always seems to agree with me. However, this is simply because he has the insight to recognise my wisdom in all things :) Geometry guy 14:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe I walked into that... :) — Rudget Contributions 14:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (I also disagree with removing them, for the same reason already given by Vantucky and Dr.cash) If the "on hold" articles were removed from the GAN list many of them would fall into the abism, because; what happens when reviewer X vanishes from wikipedia? Like what happened last month when Tefillin was on hold for over 2 weeks, if Tefillin hadn't been on the list it might have been unspotted and, if these articles were removed from the list, with time, the GA process would have "on holds" everywhere. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the page has one or more dedicated editors who are watching its Talk, they will do something to bring the situation to someone's attention. If it does not, then OnHold serves no purpose anyhow! ;-) Besides, I would prefer to leave the article listed on GAN, but simply never put an OnHold tag on GAN... since I believe that the article should be there for others to look at and hopefully add to its review... I was just saying it's OK to remove the nom from GAN outright because NO ONE EVER DOES go from GAN to look at it. So maybe a far better idea would be to burn the template once and for all. Similar to , it discourages collaborative reviewing. The idea of OnHold is OK, but the template on GAN is un-Wikipedia-like. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About your first point, User X might have worked a lot on an article, nominate it and then, during the month that it took for he's X article to be reviewed, just forgot about Wikipedia. Unless the reviewer is clairvoyant, he cannot tell that the editors have gone away and will not work on the problems pointed out with the "on hold"... -Yamanbaiia (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Keeping 'Hold' articles on 'Good Article Nominations' (aka GAN, for those who are getting buried in the acronyms) makes no sense to me also. After reviewing and notifying and reviewing the article on the article's talk page, if the reviewer disappears and the article's contributing editors disappear so that nothing at all is done....well, so what? The article doesn't get listed as a Good Article. An abandoned Hold and a Fail result in the same thing. At some point, the article can be re-listed or someone will leave a message here. Personally, I've reviewed only a few articles but it is true that there are a lot of steps. Last week, I had to finish the process for someone who only completed pieces of the process. For reviewers who only do a review a month or two, the process itself becomes a barrier. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all the comments. I would like to draw attention to the section on templates below where we have lost a potential new reviewer because reviewing is too complicated. I am sure it happens all the time without us hearing about it. I urge editors to bear this in mind when supporting the current complex system. It may be slightly better for the experienced reviewers to have all these multiple states of articles listed in multiple places, but it sure puts off new reviewers. Geometry guy 15:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On hold and second opinion 

message: Hopefully this won't come across as sour grapes because I'm really trying to improve my understanding of the Good Article process/criteria and WP:CITE.  A while back I nominated Steve Lukather for GA after working on it quite a bit.  An editor then failed the article stating lack of references and listing several passages.
I believe this editor actually meant lack of footnotes, not lack of references.  My understanding from reading WP:CITE is that footnotes are required for statements that are likely to be challenged but that we are allowed to have general "references" at the bottom of the article.  In the case of Lukather, a lot of the text (more to the point, the text that the failing editor pointed out in his comments) is sourced from Lukather's biography which is listed at the bottom of the page.  I didn't feel that I should dot footnotes all over the page to this one source for basic facts about the subject.
Also, I sometimes used a single footnote at the end of a paragraph when I took everything in that para from that particular source.  Adding to my confusion, I have seen lots of GA's and FA's that have barely any footnotes.  I feel like the article failed because the editor wanted more footnotes but that doesn't seem to be a requirement. --Bloodzombie (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick look and one big problem with your footnotes / references is that they are not fully expanded. Imagine if you printed the page, what could you do with a reference note like this? "Steve Lukather Biography" You need to provide the author, the publisher and the ISBN - i.e. standard citation format. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if the article is primarily from a single source, then inline citations (e.g. using footnotes) are unneeded except for contentious statements. I agree that you do need to add more information about the source. In particular, is it a reliable source? As it is a website, that is not completely clear. Geometry guy 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Bloodzombie - sorry if I wasn't as clear as I could have been in my commentary. I think Wassupwestcoast picked up one of the main points that I should have made clearer (and I thank him for that) - it really is quite hard to verify something when all you have to work with is "Steve Lukather Biography". I understand your point about having a source only at the end of the paragraph, and I probably should have paid more attention to that (I write in a different way, so I missed that, I guess), but there are some paragraphs with no sources at all - I'm sorry, but it wouldn't be fair to pass a GA like that. Again, I apologise for the confusion and hope this clears things up a bit - feel free to ask me for further clarification, I'm only too happy to help. By the way, the internet references in the article should really be formatted in  style or similar - I can help with that. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about fail 

message: The Fail section says:"The template  may help you organize the critique. You can also use  or  to generate a checklist."  produces an error message & appears to be defunct, & i can't for the life of me see how to edit  - when you open in edit you just get the template itself. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you forgot to substitute the templates. Use  and . These templates need to be substituted, because the GA rules are notoriously variable, and the templates may change with time ;-) Geometry guy 23:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean the page is telling me to use the wrong templates, don't you?  Don't blame it on me, pal, I was just following the instuctions! Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you are using the right templates, but are "transcluding" them, rather than "substituting" them. See Wikipedia:Template substitution. I know it is a load of complicated technobabble, but once you get it, you'll find it useful in the future. Good luck. Geometry guy 23:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I'll be bothering, thanks. It still sounds to me like the instructions are defective. Good luck with your backlog. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just spotted this exchange. I think John has a good point, lots of instructions all over WP fail to adequately describe how to "subst" a template. There's no need for every GA user to have to educate himself on the difference between transcluding and substing, if only the instructions are clear. I just changed the instructions to reflect this concern, which will hopefully prevent this from happening here in the future. -Pete (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Pete! Geometry guy 15:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 15th December 2007. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Dihydrogen Monoxide2. Canadian Paul3. Elcobbola4. M3tal H3ad5. Jackyd101. Epbr123 (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats to DHMO, but I think his latest GAN action, "Reese Witherspoon on hold", may be wishful thinking ;-) Geometry guy 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well deserved again, almost single handedly cleared the backlog of 30+ music articles. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehehe Gg - you can expect a long review for a long article. We'll see what happens. And thanks again MH :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 15/12/2007 

message: Excuse my ignorance, but I don't know about this. Can someone clear some things up for me:
#What is the Good Article Medal of Merit?
#Who awards said medal?
#What is the criteria?
#Who came up with this idea?
Sorry for the hassle, but I just want to be more knowledge-ful, wikipedia-wise. Cheers, Lex  T/C Guest Book  00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the GA project's way of recognising Dr Cash, CP and Dihydrogen Monoxide editors who contribute significantly to the project by reviewing lots articles from the WP:GAN page. The criteria are given by Epbr123 in the relevant section (above). EyeSereneTALK 09:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Reviewer of the Week? 

message: Not sure if this is the right place, or over at Good articles, but this'll do for now.  People here may be interested in what's going on with date formatting.  Tony1's addition, and subsequent comments, can be seen here: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#New guidelines for date formatting where not autoformatted.  Since it revolves around an element of MOS, reviewers here could find it useful, and worthy of comment. Carre (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New guidelines for date formatting where not autoformatted 

message: I've just gone and quick-failed Principality of Sealand as it cotnains a load of citation needed tags and some of its sources are not reliable. Was I right to take this course of action? It's the first-time I've ever quick-failed an article. Davnel03 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a perfectly reasonable quick fail, myself.  I remember this was at FAC not that long ago, and looking at the ArticleHistory template, it has also been through an FAR (delisted) in the past year or so.  If the citations haven't been provided through all those processes, it seems unreasonable to hold the nomination in anticipation of them being added soon. There are MOS breaches in there too, here and there, but that's not so important. Carre (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely acceptable. It's arguable how many "citation needed" tags merit a quickfail, but seeing how that "refimprove" tag at the bottom has been there since November, it's a moot point anyways — that tag alone would earn a quick-fail. Cheers, CP 17:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with the quick fail in this instance, I think we need a better "quick fail criteria" than "contains a refimprove tag that the editor might've missed because it was at the bottom and he doesn't go and review the article's categories/navboxes regularly" (that doesn't apply to this article, and I'm obviously over exaggerating). I think we should actually take the time and read through the article, see how much referencing is actually needed, rather than just failing because someone else once said the referencing sucks. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 06:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought is that if you want another person (ie. a GA reviewer) to spend his time reviewing your work in a given set of criteria, then the least you can do is be sure that the article is free of criteria that will quick fail it. An editor should be fully inspecting an article BEFORE submitting it to make sure that, at a reasonable level, the concerns have been addressed. I'm not talking here about a tag that was added after the nomination of course, but if there's one that's been sitting there for a month, I don't see any excuse why it should be there upon submission. People put lots of effort into articles, and I'm willing to reciprocate that effort in a GA review. It's not a case of "someone else said the referencing sucks." We have to assume good faith for the tag. If it was a driveby, remove the tag and explain why on the talk page. If the person who added the tag adds in back, then there's cause for concern. If the person is being unreasonable, there are steps to be taken. There's no deadline for these articles to become Good Articles. If the article truly deserves to be a Good Article, then there should be no trouble removing the tag before submission. If there is trouble, that probably means that there are issues that need to be worked on for the article to be Good. Of course, I'm not talking about pure vandalistic or trolling tags, which can be dealt with rather quick as well. What I basically wanted to say is that if there's a tag, and it's not warranted, then it's very easy to remove and should be done before submitting. I just didn't want that to make it seem like editors should flat out remove tags if they think they shouldn't be there, flying in the face of other legitimate concerns. But in the end, if the nominator can't be bothered to remove a tag that doesn't belong, why should we be bothered to give it a full review? There's 200 more nominations out there that did put the effort in, and I'm more than happy to show it back. Cheers, CP 07:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with you in general. My primary issue is with (quoting you) "I'm not talking here about a tag that was added after the nomination of course" - Obviously that doesn't refer to the article in question, but there are articles which are failed in such cases. I also want to re-iterate that it *is* possible to miss the refimprove tag, because it's hidden at the bottom of the article/it's been there forever/you missed it on your watchlist. A bit of extra time from the GA reviewer (not accusing anyone here) would prevent quick fails in this situation. But I'm really not sure what I'm asking for anymore... :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, well in that case I'd agree. I think it's a subset of my argument about reviewer effort. If the author/nominator has put in all that effort to write a good article, then surely a reviewer can take a few seconds to ensure that the tag was not added after nomination. After all, you have to check the article history to ensure that it meets the stability criterion anyways. We allow for a reviewer to have edited the article after the nomination to still review (to a degree) and it's not unreasonable to allow for a tag or two after the nomination (again, to a degree). I'm not a big fan of all the little caveats that have been added lately, but I wouldn't be opposed to a tiny notice next to that particular QF criteria along the lines of "reviewers should ensure that the tag was not added after the nomination." A tag can still be part of a reason for the fail in these cases, but not a criteria for quickfail (unless, of course, it's a red deletion tag, but that would fail it in stability anyhow). Cheers, CP 07:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "(unless, of course, it's a red deletion tag, but that would fail it in stability anyhow)" - Only if justified ;) And no, I'm not gonna rant on how more care is needed from the reviewer in this area too... — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 07:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick-fail 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 22nd December 2007. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Dihydrogen Monoxide2. Elcobbola3. Kane51874. Canadian Paul5. Wassupwestcoast. Epbr123 (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...for the third consecutive week. Ouch... — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No surprise - congratulations! EyeSereneTALK 21:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 22/12/2007 

message: At the WP:GAC#Sports and recreation section, there are currently 42 up for GA, and this is the only section that has this many articles. Wouldn't it make sense to split this up into two or three smaller sections?--十八 02:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to appear pushy but I'm surprised that articles such as Dennis Franklin and Bob Timberlake haven't been failed yet, both of these are very small articles that don't seem to be broad when covering their scope, there are a few other simmilar cases there but I thought those were probably the most obvious ones, we should really try to avoid letting one user nominate twenty-one articles at once, that puts on some serious strain on the nomination process and creates a automatic backlog. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - I'm going to fail those too, they really are week on broadness. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not feel either of your reviews was very high quality.  See comments on similar efforts at .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the problem here is that you concentrated in nominating several articles that are unsuitable for GA without analizing the content properly, complaining that the reviews were "half-arsed" won't change the fact that several of these articles simply lack the content nessesary to go beyond "B-class", most of the articles you nominated were biographies wich if they don't cover enough aspects of the subject's life and/or what makes said person notable fall short of GA standards, most of the articles that were nominated on November 30 were beyond "On-Hold" repair, most of them would have a hard time passing as good B-class articles, however there is always WP:GAR if you stand by this opinion after analizing the content of these biographies. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair to Dihydrogen Monoxide, the reviews were "quick fails" so they weren't intended to be high quality. Although, it does raise the question of whether quick fails should be discouraged. Epbr123 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said before, I'm not particularly fond of "quick fail" - I did try to put in a decent review in for both of them - the prose was fine and there wasn't much to talk about there (except jargon), so I really didn't have much to "complain" about. That doesn't lower the value of my review (at least, I would hope it doesn't); rather it says something about the quality of the article (specifically in relation to the broadness criteria). And I have stated on TonyTheTiger's talk page that I now specifically refuse to review any of his GA nominations in future, as I'm not particularly fond of my review being called "half-arsed" or whatever else he said about it. Sure, I didn't spend an hour on it as I have on some, but I tried to make it as useful as I could considering there was so little to talk about. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TonyTheTiger just doesn't like that his articles are being failed. I gave him a longer review on Greg Skrepenak‎ and he still complained. When an article that is a biography doesn't even contain a date of birth or much about their personal or non-career life, then it's not very comprehensive, is it? I read through the article and left some comments about how the article could be improved. It could have been a little longer, but I don't think there is anything overly wrong with it. -- Scorpion0422 04:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People ask why I don't do more GA reviews. As you can see by the three I've done, I don't do quick reviews. If I do a review, I do it for the purpose of helping another person achieve a GA where I think I can make the difference by reviewing it. I have only done three and intended to do a fourth Walter O'Malley, but it was failed before I could do so and I thus helped renominate it. I very much appreciate it when a reviewer takes the time to say this is not a GA, but it could be with a specific set of changes. I am disappointed when an article is close enough that a decent reviewer could direct me toward a GA with a hold and I get needlessly failed. It is detrimental to the project when this happens because the next reviewer has to start from scratch after a renomination. In this case, we had a single editor with 29 nominations and a series of talk page threads all over the place saying what should we do that resulted in 8 consecutive fails. I have taken several failed noms well in the past. This is a situation where there is a concerted effort to do something detrimental to the project to try to humble some cocky editor who nominated 29 articles at one time. It is not good for the project to quickfail articles that are close. Since User:Dihydrogen Monoxide is one of the best reviewers on WP and I am one of the most successful nominators on WP it would be very likely if he put an effort into writing a constructive GA on hold and I gave a good effort at responding to it, the project would have an additional good article such activity should be encouraged. That is what my point is. In terms of international importance, both Bob Timberlake and Dennis Franklin are low importance. They both might be low importance to any project they are associated with. However, WP:GAC does not consider an article's importance. I don't have access to common sources to do much more to expand upon the breadth of the article. I am much more disappointed in the reviews of User:Scorpion0422‎ than those of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Of the 8 fails, I will concede about half of them. However, I am considering renominating 4 or 5 of them at WP:GAR. I challenge all GA reviewers to look at Greg Skrepenak and say whether they are as skilled enough reviewer to have guided it to GA status with a constructive hold. I think the majority of reviewers could. That is my point here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  04:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Evidently you consider me a skilled reviewer. I looked at the reviewed version of Greg Skrepenak  and could not see a justification for placing it on hold, short of "I've spent the last week finding sources, here they all are. Oh yes, and here's the prose that you can write based on these sources. Copy paste this into the article and I'll put it on hold." It's the same with the two I reviewed - I could critique what was there more than I did, and I don't want to waste my time finding sources that you couldn't be bothered finding (or, if you did search, they aren't there, so it's even more of a waste). Sorry, that isn't what GAC is about, and someone with as many GAs as you would surely understand that. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article as it is is much better than it was. this is the version I reviewed. The fact that you followed several of my suggestions and expanded it significantly indicates that my review was somewhat valuable and it should just be renominated. It doesn't really belong at GA review. The purpose of that is when you thinkt the version that was reviewed deserved to pass. -- Scorpion0422 04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m apt to believe that criticizing the efforts of volunteer reviewers is more “detrimental to the project” than not holding a nomination.  The GA process is not here to develop articles into Good Articles; it is here to evaluate articles already “believe[d] … to be good according Good article criteria” and, if necessary, provide constructive criticism.  If you believe a review to not be sufficiently thorough, politely asking the reviewer to elaborate or bringing the article to WP:GAR are appropriate actions.  Accusations of a collaborative effort to fail articles to spite a nominator fail to assume good faith and undermine the GA process, which is “built upon the good faith efforts and honor of reviewers”. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This diff comparing the version Scorpion reviewed to the current version is evidence that his GA review did exactly what it was supposed to do. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I am saying is that the diff you are pointing to could have easily resulted from a 'Hey this article covers the guys whole life, but does not really elaborate on the NFL portion of his career, which is afterall in large part responsible for making his life notable.'  A GA on hold could have gotten this result.  Then the original reviewer could go back and look at the two paragraphs added and say. Yeah this is sort of what I was looking for.  I am just saying that what you were asking for was some detail that could have been handled by a "If you can do this it would be a good article", which is what a hold is for.  Now a new reviewer has to review the whole article, which is a resource drain on the project.  There is no need to take special action and have this section and or Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_8#Number_of_concurrent_nominations.  Just look at the articles and see if you can help bring them to GA.  I do think most people who would look at the original version would have felt they could have brought it to GA with a constructive hold. Now, that I have done several sports articles I am finding that certain cities have extensive online search archives for the major daily newspaper going back 20 or 25 years.  So far I have found that the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Houston Chronicle are all available.  A reviewer could simply say this guy played a large part of his career in the Bay area and you should research their archives to expand his NFL career section.  That would be sufficient for a GA hold.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Quoted from [[Template:GANotice]) "It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed." - I hardly see how an article lacking a significant amount of content is "basically a good article" and I don't see how the content it lacks is only a "minor change". Perhaps we have different definitions of "on hold". — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "On hold" is for changes that you think the editor can make within seven days without too much trouble, IMO.  Adding two paragraphs, which was more than was necessary on Greg Skrepenak could easily be done in seven days.  In the case of the two articles you failed I think Dennis Franklin may be more complete than you think, because the information you request is not easily accessible by a simple internet search.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, the information I requested couldn't really be added in seven days. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Sports and recreation section 

message: Hello, is anyone interested in looking over an article, but not for GA?  Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other more conventional places where to ask for this, like the irc channel and the peer review thingy, but whatever...drop it like it's hot here, I'll take a look. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the article is Greatest Hits (Lost), which has already been peer reviewed.  At its FAC, a user has said that "nearly every sentence needs fiddling… find someone to run through the whole article."  I have listed it for review by the League of Copyeditors, but it will be weeks before someone gets to it.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know nothing about Lost so I had some trouble following the -Plot- section, apart from that, I don't think it's a terrible article. I have a MOS doubt though, I'm not sure this:"April 9, 2007 to April 12", is OK, wikilinking speaking.Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 01:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my experiences with Tony1 (at FAC) he'll generally provide some examples of what's bad about the article, if you ask. Then you just have to check for re-occurances of said issue. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do.  –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review please 

message: Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter]] 

message: I just ran the Page History Stats tool on this page (it was the first run, so in future it should be quicker) and got some rather interesting results. The top editor of the page (with 407 edits) was Lincher who seems to have retired. Next was Canadian Paul, followed by Dr. Cash, Nehrams2020, and yours truly, all with over 270 edits. Nice work all involved. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what happened to Lincher. Doesn't look like he was involved in any wikidrama, his edits just stopped. That's too bad, he was a good editor. --kingboyk (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some interesting page statistics... 

message: To match long overdue changes at GA (see WT:GA), film and drama are now listed under Arts and architecture. This includes television and radio drama, dramatic comedy, soap operas, fictional characters etc., but not television and radio journalism and other non-fiction. Apologies for any temporary inconvenience finding your GAN listings. Geometry guy 21:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In view of the discussion in the previous thread, any ideas for subdividing this subtopic would be welcome. The same probably applies to the Music subtopic, which is also rather large now. Geometry guy 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Why is architecture grouped with arts? Isn't architecture primarily related to engineering?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaluza (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From an architect's point of view it may be. One reason art and architecture are grouped together is because one of the categories for featured articles has long been "Art, architecture and archaeology". That isn't a particularly good reason of course! However, if you look at the articles we have on architecture, they aren't really engineering articles. They are more about the significance and artistic design of buildings and other structures. Some of them are more like history articles even. Listing them with arts is a compromise, but not such a bad one in my view. Geometry guy 13:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theatre, film and drama 

message: Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 29th December 2007. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Dihydrogen Monoxide2. AnonEMouse3. Canadian Paul4. Scorpion04225. Elcobbola. Epbr123 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 29/12/2007 

message: Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 5th January 2008. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Dihydrogen Monoxide2. Canadian Paul3. M3tal H3ad4. Casliber5. AnonEMouse. Epbr123 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 in 2 days ^_^ — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 5/1/2008 

message: Hi, I'm currently trying to perform my first review on :Queen's Pier. The article is pretty much there, but as contributors claim: This article eschews the Wikilinking of dates.
My understanding of linking full dates is that it is a presentational issue for readers who have set their preferences to US, or International presentation. (:MOS:DATE#Autoformatting and linking)
Two editors on the page have reached a consensus that such linking is not necessary. There are other issues of consistency between the article's use of the two date formats - which they are fixing while the article is on hold. If issues of date consistency are fixed, do I PASS this article, FAIL, or ask for a second opinion. My feeling is that (when date consistency is fixed) this is the only issue with the article.
Thanks for any advice more experienced reviewers can provide. As a neophyte, you may wish to look over the article and provide any additional advice on reviews on my talk page.  Kbthompson (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikilinking of dates is highly contested because autoformatting requires the dates to be linked, which introduces a number of drawbacks. There are a number of voices against it, which think the links do more harm than good. There's been a long discussion on it on the MOSDATE talk page, and even  a petition to get the devs to fix the issue. User:Tony1 is working on a proposal to make it optional. henrik•talk 10:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your prompt reply. Now I know far more about dates than I ever wished to! From the discussion I understand that it is currently compulsory but within the short term may become optional. It is not my inclination to make work for editors - particularly if they themselves are against wiki linking the dates - however, I have no right to anticipate a consensus on some future optional policy. Unless there are any objections, I shall PASS this article when consistency is achieved - but note my reservations as part of the review. Kbthompson (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Luckily (well, it is not by chance actually) the full intricacies of the ever-changing Manual of Style are not required by the good article criteria, only a few of its most important points are. In particular, GA is agnostic when it comes to wikilinking dates. If this is the only issue, passing is certainly fine. Geometry guy 13:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the advice, I will however ask for consistency between date formats. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinking dates 

message: Sorry if this question was raised before, but has anyone quick failed an article due to the nominator's inactivity to improve the article after the GAC has been placed on hold? miranda 13:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Failing an Aricticle due to nominator inactivity 

message: I copied over the relevant chunk of the GA review process to my userspace at User:David Fuchs/scratch. I figure that  it might be helpful to create a possible replacement for the current guidelines as a proposal which everyone can work on, and then see where it gets us. The only things I changed right now are:
* Templates. I put in placeholders, but the idea would be to have one flexible template for all reviewing- generating a checklist, et al.
* ArticleHistory- the most confusing template out there, in my opinion, but it's much easier to keep track of progress from the getgo if we use this solely.
Righto, David Fuchs (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Putting into practice

message: I've recently reviewed the strangely named Þingalið. I've got some minor concerns, including a worry about OR, that is partly cleared up here. My review can be seen here A comment has been made that the article would perhaps better be merged into the Housecarl article, which would reduce my concerns over breadth of coverage of this article. Is it fair to leave a decision hanging until a concensus can be reached over whether or not it should be merged? Or would it be unreasonable to fail the article and suggest re-submitting it after a consensus is reached? Suggestions would be welcome! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate reasons for a hold 

message: Quick question as part of the House Martin review. Two images, :Image:Bysvale.jpg and :Image:House Martin-Mindaugas Urbonas.JPG, specifically ask for a credit to be given to a named party. It is my understanding that this means a photo credit in the caption must be used. Correct? VanTucky 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't the fact that she releases it under the GFDL mean that she doesn't have to be attributed? David Fuchs (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know for sure, but I figure that if they ask to be credited, then it's safer to credit them than not. There's no real harm in making a photo credit in an image caption. Plus, it's dual-license GFDL CC-BY-SA, not regular GFDL. And the second one is only the CC license. VanTucky 04:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think crediting them on the image page is enough with CC-BY.  That's what I was once told, anyways.  Legally, I think that's enough.  It's easy to be nice and add it to the caption, of course. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think it is better in a case like this to leave the image credit on the image page only, as the credit isn't really part of the article or its verifiability. Certainly this suffices: the request for a credit on the image page is a reminder to anyone copying the image to another site that they can only do so with attribution. Geometry guy 10:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image licensing issue 

message: Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Nehrams2020 as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 12th January 2008. Nehrams2020 is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Nehrams20202. M3tal H3ad3. Dihydrogen Monoxide4. Canadian Paul5. Miranda. Epbr123 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh dear - I should do some work, eh? :P Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody had to knock you off your hill! I'll probably keep up with the reviews, but I still need to go back to doing sweeps reviews. The current progress on that is going by a little too slow. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, I was...erm...burned out from all the awesome reviews I had done. You just won by default because I stopped :D Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You stopped reviewing and you're still third on the list? Sounds like your name is permanently there. Hmmm...I must get to the bottom of this conspiracy. I guess I'll have to keep up with the reviews, and see if I can top you again. Bring on that "awesome reviewing" if you can! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since I'm that great, even when I've stopped I review a bit. Usually while sleeping. Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sleeping? I'm doing all of my reviews while in a coma. A friend determines what issues should be addressed in each review, based on the differences in my heart rate. So although I have some help, I will completely remove the backlog in a day once I wake up! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, Wikiholism. Isn't it refreshing? bibliomaniac15 04:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 12/1/2008 

message: I nominated Islamic military jurisprudence for GA some time ago. It was failed by User: Yahel Guhan in the last 24 hours. Yahel Guhan has made significant contributions to the article. Using, this, I have determined that Yahel Guhan is the #2 contributor to article (after myself). The user has also been engaged in disputes and edit-wars on the article at different points in time.
WP:GAN says that "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review." Thus, I want this article to be reviewed by an outside party, one that has not been a major contributor. Should I simply renominate this, or should I seek a re-assesment.Bless sins (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend that you simply renominate it, as that would be the most likely consensus at a reassessment. VanTucky 21:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, just renominate. If the problem repeats itself, take it to GAR. Geometry guy 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have contacted the reviewer to remind them that what they did was inappropriate, and I have made a talk statement on the article. VanTucky 21:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks VT, you are a star! Geometry guy 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article failed by a major contributor 

message: This discussion might have some relevance here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Suggestion for new gadget. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village pump discussion 

message: can anybody here volunteer and please come forward to review this article please. its been more than a month now. Sushant gupta (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your article has been up there since December 31, meaning that it's been less than half of a month thus far. Please see our report for a rough estimate of how long some of the articles have been listed. We are currently experiencing a greater than average backlog, but have been working diligently to reduce it. There are many nominations that have been there for 50+ days. Your article will be gotten to in due course. Cheers, CP 18:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request- [[Economic development in India]]- GA review. 

message: For an article's GA nomination, is it mandatory for it to be a B-class article? Thanks and regards, Mspraveen (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it can meet the GA criteria at the moment it is listed, it doesn't matter what the assessment class is. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The criteria are here: Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Some projects do have assessment reviews for start and B-class (for example the films project) but there is no equivalent all Wikipedia process like GA for any class below GA. Thus, almost every thing coming to GA effectively has no class. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, a B-class rating is not required, but I would think if a project had been recently asked to look over an article and it didn't get a B-rating, it's unlikely to pass GA. The key word is "recently". Quite a few article pass FA with project ratings no higher than "start". Gimmetrow 06:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query for nomination 

message: At the holiday season, I failed an article rather than placing it on hold, as I thought the improvements couldn't be done as there were quite a few, but they were all attended to very well.  Can it now be passed, or should the article undergo a re-nomination procedure?  (  article was Force  )Thank you.SriMesh | talk 01:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is preferable to go through the formalities of renomination, but there is no reason why you cannot be the reviewer again, and pass the article quite quickly if it now meets the criteria. Geometry guy 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, as long as no one is trying to "pull a fast one", requesting a specific reviewer is perfectly OK, as long as the reviewer clearly applies the WP:WIAGA criteria fairly and honestly.  If they don't, it will get caught anyway... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query re holds and GA requests 

message: What happened to the table of contents on this discussion page? With so much discussion on a variety of topics, I find the lack of the ability to quickly scan the topics and jump to the conversation I'm interested in very unhelpful. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone transcluded a page containing a notoc magic word onto this page by mistake. I've replaced it by a link. Geometry guy 16:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No TOC on this page? 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Ealdgyth as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 19th January 2008. Ealdgyth is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Ealdgyth2. Canadian Paul3. Derek.cashman4. VanTucky5. Johnfos. Epbr123 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, I'm back off! Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 02:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah! I'm embarrassed! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 19/1/2008 

message: Well i just rewrote this article and was wondering if there is enough content for it to be considered an article? M3tal H3ad (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article or list 

message: Participation by regular reviewers at Good article reassessment has dropped significantly in recent months. There are several possible reasons: it may be seasonal, it may be because the backlog is quite small at the moment, it may be because several key GAR regulars have recently become admins, and so have many other things to do.
So, this is a call for editors with GAN reviewing experience to contribute to GAR discussions. GAR is important because it determines consensus on good article quality issues in borderline or disputed cases. As such, it interprets the good article criteria in the same way that courts interpret the law. Sometimes this also results in changes or clarifications to the criteria. It is therefore important that editors with frontline reviewing experience join in.
The GA Tasks template, which appears in many places (such as WP:WGA and the GA Newsletter) lists the current backlog at GAR. Whereas in the past, this was not updated reliably, it now automatically lists any GAR discussions which are more than 2 weeks old. Further reviews for these articles are particularly helpful.
Note that you can now watchlist an individual GAR discussion that interests you. If you wish to watch for the addition of new GAR requests, you should watchlist User:VeblenBot/C/GAR instead, as the GAR page itself is automatically generated from this data. Geometry guy 20:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll se what I can do. But I'm really busy. RC-0722 communicator/kills 21:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to poke in too. (adds one more thing to the list of things to do) Ealdgyth | Talk 01:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, thanks. There isn't any imminent crisis or backlog at GAR, just a shortage of regular contributors: any help, however small or infrequent, would be much appreciated. If a few more regulars stopped by just once every week or two, it would make all the difference. Geometry guy 14:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAR reviewers needed 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Ealdgyth as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 26th January 2008. Ealdgyth is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Ealdgyth2. Dihydrogen Monoxide3. Canadian Paul4. Jackyd1015. Drewcifer3000. Epbr123 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 in a row - nice. And guess who's back on the ladder! Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 26/1/2008 

message: Hi there.  In a recent discussion I was involved in it was suggested that the nomination and listing procedure for GAC was in need of an overhaul.  Based on my work at The League of Copyeditors I volunteered to examine the system and possibly propose some improvements to it.  The reaction to the new system at LOCE has taught me that finding out the interests and priorities of those who actually have to use the finished system is imperative in ensuring a smooth transition and the best possible final result.  So, I would be very interested to hear any suggestions that users of the GAC system have for its improvement, or features that should be prioritised in a new system.  To avoid allowing the discussion to get bogged down and drowning in its own ink, could I request that suggestions be kept as concise as possible, with discussion proceeding in a separate section? Many thanks in advance for any comments and suggestions offered. Happy‑melon 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements to the nomination and listing structure 

message: More substantial discussions to proceed below.
* I don't find nominating articles difficult. I don't even find signing up to review them that difficult. I find passing them as good articles to be a royal pain in the posterior.Ealdgyth | Talk 14:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but it doesn't appear that some GA reviewers sometimes skip step 2 for article review. It says: 
*Paste #: ~~~~ below the entry; this avoids multiple reviews of the same article. 
Please use this step even if you decide to quick-fail an article. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please remember to post the <nowiki>{{GAReview}}</nowiki> banner below entry before reviewing

message: I have noticed that many reviewers are section-specific. I, for example, like to review Literature articles. I have therefore developed a theory that sections which have huge backlogs have those backlogs because the number of writers of that subject exceeds the number of reviewers. I have further guessed that dropping notes asking for reviewers from relevant wikiprojects could help with this backlog. For example, the sports section is huge, so we could drop notes at sports wikiprojects. Wrad (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've hit the nail on the head here. I snatch up a lot of the Biology reviews, but never do sports or TV episodes. I was just thinking that we need to recruit a sports reviewer. Good work Wrad, VanTucky 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've recently started in the last few months mentioning in the WP:FILMS monthly newsletter that there is a backlog in the film-related articles section, asking members to consider reviewing some of the articles (if they haven't significantly edited the article of course). Additionally, after every GA review I complete, I always ask the nominator of the article or those that are potentially reading the review to consider reviewing an article or two. Usually those that nominate an article in a particular topic area will be more likely to review a related-topic article. We just need to continue to convince people to start reviewing articles and hope that they either offset the number of articles they nominate or hopefully stick around for the long run to review an article a week or a few a month. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog theory 

message: The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WGA|WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter]] 

message: If one of the admin-type editors could take a look at the San Francisco Municipal Railway nomination.  It appears to be on the list as an active nomination, but on the article's talk page, it's listed as a failed candidate (the talk page actually has two "failed" banners that maybe could use some clean-up).  So, I'm confused ... is this article in fact currently a nominee? NorCalHistory (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I only saw one failed banner, but I moved the information to an article history template.  Now just the  banner is there.  The article is indeed listed at WP:GAN, so it is a current nominee. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk
oops - you're right, my bad. thx NorCalHistory (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Francisco Municipal Railway 

message: Unfortunately I sleep when you guys are most lively, otherwise I would have stepped into the discussion sooner. I've just read through it now.
The proposal misses the idea behind the GA "one reviewer" concept, and the response fails to emphasise the following point: any uninvolved editor can, at any time, delist a GA, by following the delisting guidelines. If an article is passed inappropriately, delist it! The whole idea behind the GA mechanism is that it should be easy to list and easy to delist (within 1-2 weeks), so that consensus emerges over time. Okay, so most GA reviewers try damn hard to get it right the first time, but if that doesn't happen, then a GA can be delisted, relisted and so on, until consensus emerges.
In cases of disagreement, or borderline cases, there is a well established process, Good article reassessment, which operates in a similar way to AfD, FAC and FAR/C. Ca existe! The whole point of the GA concept is to use such a process only as a last resort, when reviewing, listing, and delisting by individual uninvolved editors breaks down.
At the moment I think the benefits of this concept are underexploited at GA (for instance, there is too much reluctance among individual reviewers to delist articles with the same care as they would review them for GAN). But taking away the potential benefits of the GA concept is simply a step in the wrong direction. Geometry guy 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: at any time, delist a GA Whats the use of the review? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He just explained that. Brit, have you ever reviewed an article? You really don't seem to understand what it is you're criticizing. You can easily do a review in one hour. Try it. I'd suggest you take a review on yourself and see what it's like. Don't knock it till you've tried it. Please. Wrad (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yah. I've reviewed several articles but left the decision to others because I can't fact check them for some reasons. If a good review was done, delisting wont exist. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but we're all human ;) It's there for a good reason, although like Gguy says maybe not used enough. However, there's always WP:GAR if you're nervous about making a unilateral delist. EyeSereneTALK 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) To delist, you need to read the review, the delisting guidelines and the criteria, and then justify your delistment in the light of this information. If you ignore these, someone's likely to take your delisting to GAR. Geometry guy 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We aren't here to review articles against anything other than the GA criteria. We aren't expected to do anything else. If you want to fact check something, then feel free to devote yourself to it and fix the article up. The GA criteria is simple and never takes more than an hour to check something against. That's the way the system was designed. Wrad (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Not all GAs take one hour to review. For some long articles such as the University of Florida takes one or two full days due to grammar, punctuation, and MOS. miranda 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ca existe. Misunderstandings of the GA concept

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 2nd February 2008. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Derek.cashman2. Ealdgyth3. Wrad4. Jackturner35. VanTucky. Epbr123 (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I made the list. Wrad (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I only did like, three finished reviews. I'm gnoming my way through the backlog :) Just for statistical purposes (read: my personal amusement), can we include a count of reviews for the list Epbr? VanTucky 03:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wow! I'm back on top! Yay! I thought I was supposed to be odd-numbered months?!?! ;-) Congrats to the other reviewers! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 2/2/2008 

message: Can someone please say what the word "long" means before an entry? There's no key on the main page and I can't work it out just from looking at the articles and their talk pages in question. Technohead1980 (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wondered this myself for some time. I'm assuming it means that the article is longer than 32KB, based on WP:SIZE. VanTucky 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed this as well and been bothered by it. Its use is always inconsistent, if we are indeed going based off of 32KB, a majority of those listed here are indeed LONG. So, if this is the case, should they be added to all nominations? And if so, to what end? SorryGuy  Talk  05:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The LONG designation indicates that the article's text is over 32kb, according to this revision under "How to nominate a page" (I just went far back into the history, not sure when this was initially added/changed to the current instructions that include no information about the LONG inclusion). Additionally, some reviewers will include the exact length of the article right after LONG. If you see LONG before an article now, it is probably from people who have nominated articles in the past and through force of habit continue to add it (I still do), or are copying other reviewers. The designation may indicate to reviewers that the article's text is beyond a certain length and may take longer to review, or for people with slower connections who may want to avoid loading larger pages. I'm not sure why the instructions for including LONG has been removed, perhaps it was either forgotten in the transition for the new instructions or it was just ignored. I'm sure many of the current nominations would probably fall under the LONG requirements, but I believe some nominators don't include it either unintentionally or are fearful that a reviewer won't take a look at their article because it is long. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Some people (reviewers and nominators) add the word "LONG" to nominations to indicate that the article is longer than about 32KB. This is partly a throwback to the days when it actually mattered to browsers whether an article was more than 32KB or not. Now that the edit history records the length and is just a click away from every nomination, adding the word "LONG" to denote some arbitrary boundary between a short article and a long one is a waste of time, and no longer required. As it is evidently also confusing, I suggest "LONG"'s should be removed from nominations. Geometry guy 09:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a LONG time since that was relevant. Agree with G-guy (as always). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have to say that I agree with both of you on this issue. I feel that some articles just cannot be outlined within a short box and need to be ellaborated on. I also feel that it is the job of each editor to make a point using the least amount of verbiage to reach that goal. I think that the reason the rule was imposed to start with was to keep editors from rambling within the article. So, as to not make it see like I am rambling here, I am in full agreement that the word "Long" should be removed from the rules here. Canyouhearmenow 13:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on general consensus here, it appears that LONG should be removed, and fortunately for us, it already has been removed from the instructions. So we just need to remove the ones from the current nominations. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not before time. It seems to regularly cause confusion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#GA article length) and has no real purpose IMO. EyeSereneTALK 17:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I've removed the long tags from the current nominations. Geometry guy 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Gguy, that's one process down and counting... ;) EyeSereneTALK 19:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The KISS principle strikes a victory for reviewers everywhere! :P David Fuchs (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LONG 

message: I am attempting to reply to the reviewer at Talk:Wilfrid Kent Hughes, but whatever I write is not showing up in response. For example, I have placed a :* under the first recommendation but when I go back to check my comments they do not show up. I'm guessing it may be something at my end but I have checked this on two different computers and cannot get anything I write to show on the page (I hope this makes sense). Could someone look at the page and tell me what I am doing wrong?  Cheers --Roisterer (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems as if the reviewer made a mistake on the formatting. I fixed it according to what I thought seemed right, the  symbol shows up now. Hope that was helpful. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't see what I am doing wrong here... 

message: A large amount of the articles in this backlog are On Hold. So when the article is On Hold after a fixed time and the review is valid I think that the article should be delisted from the nomination list. Also if there is improvement, but not alot it should still be delisted because that would (in my opinion) mean that the article shouldn't have been put on hold. Another idea is that we should change the criteria for putting an article on hold. However going back to the backlog I think that there are backlogs within this backlog. Tarret talk 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious what the line is that reviewers draw between "fail" and "on hold." For me, if an article has relatively significant referencing problems or any breadth problems, I fail it. I only put it on hold if I can count the missing refs on one hand, or it is only missing one topic required for breadth, or if it only has copyediting problems. Otherwise I fail it. What do others do? Wrad (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that the distinction between "on review" and "on hold" is pointless. Reviewers should list all the issues they see on the article talk page, however many, however few, however easy or difficult to fix. Then wait for a week or so to see if there is any sign that these issues are likely to be fixed in the very near future. If not, fail. Some nominators won't fix trivial issues in a week. Some nominators can move mountains in a matter of days. Geometry guy 00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some reviewers put the article on hold for three to five objections, reviewing in just an hour. Duh! Even the use of quotation marks were overlooked! --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (2 edit conflicts!) I wait until I've written the full review before I make any decision (unless it's a quick-fail, obviously). Personally I like to err on the side of holding rather than failing if I can justify it; I've seen articles with committed editors get brought up to scratch well within the hold period, where I privately thought they had no chance of passing within the next six months. IMO it makes little difference to fail an article on review or seven days later, but it can make all the difference to an editor, who has perhaps been waiting a while anyway, to get a fair crack at fixing things. Does anyone keep records for this? Some stats would be interesting here (ie percentages passed, held, failed etc on first review, and after holds). EyeSereneTALK 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of my longer holds are for articles that got nominated, and then sat. And sat. After over a month of sitting and waiting for a review, I kinda feel that I should be understanding that folks' ideas of how much time they'd have to address issues might be a bit off. Most of them have talked to me and explained and given me a time frame. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Communication is always good. Wrad (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The other issue I've run across with articles like this is that sometimes editors have pretty much given up on getting reviewed, and have either gone on to other things or are on a wikibreak or something. I totally agree with you that it's only fair to be flexible with hold periods in cases like this. EyeSereneTALK 10:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; I've had holds (Frank Zappa and Buster Smith come to mind) on hold for well over two weeks. I find that leaving a note under the on hold template stating "extended hold" generally helps everyone. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 15:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Some reviewers hold articles for weeks without specifying its an "extended hold". --BritandBeyonce (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA On Hold 

message: The "link checker tool" is impossibly slow. I'm still waiting for the results page to open after a half-hour. You might mention this in the instructions.—RJH (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of connection are you using and how many links are in the article you are checking?  I just did one and it only took about 10-15 seconds.  --Holderca1 talk 16:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to give me the article you are attempting to check with it, I would be willing to do it for you. SorryGuy  Talk  07:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web link checker is slow 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Ealdgyth as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 9th February 2008. Ealdgyth is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Ealdgyth2. Blnguyen3. Dihydrogen Monoxide4. VanTucky5. Jackturner3. Epbr123 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My world is in turmoil again. Comfortable I was, last month, with Dr Cash in his traditional place; now I am just confused! What are the rules here? :-) Congratulations to all, especially Ealdgyth, and also Jack, for a second appearance on the leader board. So Jack, can you knock those other four regular performers off their pedestals? DHMO will be a cinch ;-) — his hols must be over by now (although he has a really cool sig now, even if I say so myself); Ealdgyth is the new superstar, so that will a greater challenge! Have fun everyone! Geometry guy 22:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, been back at school for 2 weeks :( I did like 5 reviews over the weekend - that must've got me over the line.  And yeah, my sig is pretty awesome - yours aint bad either :) Now, Gguy, get back in the top 5! dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Had a funeral to go to last week, so I wasn't around as much,... Anyways, congratulations to the top five for the week! Dr. Cash (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Closing on land end of this week, so time is going to be short. Will try to get some GA's reviewed, we'll see what happens!Ealdgyth | Talk 19:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I actually didn't know there was a weekly competition, let alone that I'd been in the top five for two weeks *grin*.  I'm a bit under the weather this week, but I'll see if I can do all the articles in Philosophy and Religion some time this week and knock out a few more of the articles in the backlog...anyone know when the next backlog elimination drive is going on? -- jackturner3 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 9/2/2008 

message: Lal Masjid Siege appears no longer to be a GAN - according to its Talk page, it is now a FAC. GiveItSomeThought (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Close FAC. --Efe (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove it in here anyway. It was failed before and now, its back in GN but no banner stating its a current nominee. --Efe (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lal Masjid Siege appears no longer to be a GAN 

message: According to the current page's description of how to nominate, it says, "Before nominating, ensure that you are a registered user...". Last I looked there were a couple IP noms that have not been objected to. Personally, since IPs cannot be reasonably expected to implement requested changes to a candidate, I don't think we should allow it. What is the consensus on this? VanTucky 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; if the reviewer’s time and, thusly, the project’s resources are to be applied to a nomination, the least a nominator can do is have a registered name; it shows a rudimentary commitment to the project and allows us some reasonable assurance that they will be present to act upon and respond to the reviewer’s comments. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tricky one though - editing from an IP address does make user talk page communication difficult, or impossible with dynamic IPs. It won't stop anon editors responding on an article talk page though. Personally I prefer dealing with named editors and would probably come down on the 'no anon noms' side (and not just because I like saying that), but should we be restricting access to the GA process? Isn't that against what WP stands for? (Deja vu, I just wrote something like this above!) EyeSereneTALK 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your sentiment EyeSerene. Maybe the procedure for dealing with IP noms should be to first automatically contact the IP on their talk page and get a confirmation that they understand that a GA nom entails a commitment of time and effort on their part. If they are okay with that commitment, then it should be fine. We don't get that many IP noms, so I think dealing with it case-by-case is a healthy way to compromise GA's needs with the openness of the project. No? VanTucky 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In some ways it's a moot point, since as you've already pointed out we ask only registered users to nominate (and I noticed that an IP nom was removed from WP:GAN a few minutes ago citing this as the reason). IMO the minimal number of potential GAs we may lose is outweighed by all the advantages of dealing with a registered user, and I'm not proposing that we change GAN policy - just noting that IP contributions are a valuable part of our encyclopedia ;) However, if our policy does change at some point in the future, I think your proposal would be the most workable to handle it. EyeSereneTALK 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP nominations 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 16th February 2008. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Blnguyen2. Dihydrogen Monoxide3. TimVickers4. Ealdgyth5. Jackturner3. Epbr123 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, oh so close :) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats Blnguyen! Dr. Cash (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 16/2/2008 

message: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 23rd February 2008. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:1. Blnguyen2. David Fuchs3. VanTucky4. Dihydrogen Monoxide5. Calbear22. Epbr123 (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 23/2/2008 

message: I've put Moberly-Jourdain incident on hold. It's in the Miscellaneous section now, any ideas on where on WP:GA it should go when passed? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is an interesting read. Possibly in either "Myths, mythology & miracles", "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures", or "World History-Europe"? You could probably create a new section if you see fit. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to "Myths, mythology & miracles". dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where would this go? 

message: I keep noticing that a lot of our backlog is coming from a few well-organised WikiProjects with a high throughput (notably US Roads and Hurricanes).  Does anyone see a problem in explicitly inviting these wikiprojects to review their own nominations?  I don't mean the nominators themselves, but other people in the project who haven't worked on the article.  It's a bit of a conflict of interest, in that other project members would like to see project articles pass, but I think we ought to assume that the reviewers would also be concerned that the articles are up to standard.  Thoughts? --jwandersTalk 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine with me- after all, they are the ones interested in it, and as long as they are objective, it also helps codify style and consistency. Don't forget about the sports/games people though- that's got a couple dozen in backlog. David Fuchs (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop in regards to U.S. Roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and believe consensus supports this, but we need to modify a sentence in our guidelines to really encourage it: see also, my comments here. Geometry guy 23:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as U.S. Roads goes, the project does have its own peer review process as well as A-class review, so articles do get reviewed by other road editors.  I'd personnally prefer someone not from the project to review the articles to ensure they make sense to someone not as familiar with roads in general.  --Holderca1 talk 16:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, well since I wen to WP:AWNB last year drum up support for a GA100 push for WP:AUS, I refrain from reviewing Australian articles, since I feel a bit under pressure to not batter people who work hard, since I encouraged them to write GACs for Australia, so I felt I might be vulnerable to soft passing Australian articles. I still fail the really bad ones though. Blnguyen  (photo straw poll) 00:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this, and Holderca1's comment above. Just because the GAN guidelines permit an editor to review a particular article, it does not mean they should. Often it is a good idea to have input from someone outside the WikiProject, and I'm perfectly happy for WikiProjects to recommend this to their participants. What I think is unhelpful is a prohibition in the GAN guidelines. Geometry guy 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should send out a form message to all of the WikiProjects, asking them to either assist in reviewing articles that fall under their scope or other articles. There are over a large amount of WikiProjects that relate to articles, and I believe that sending out a request for help will hopefully drive some new reviewers here. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inviting active projects to help with backlog 

message: Are we on a backlog elimination drive that I don't know about? I've seen a marked increase in motion at GAN over the last couple days—I personally was in a little race with VanTucky to see who could nab the most reviews. Has anyone else noticed this, or am I just delusional? Kakofonous (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm...I think it's just you, mate ;) I've got heaps of FA drives going on, so I'm not as active as I'd like to be around here. All the more respect to those who are! dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I randomly went on a video game reviewing spree, but I don't know about the other categories... I prolly should be helping out with the Sweeps, but I kinda forget about them... :P David Fuchs (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the backlog graph for the full story. I will update it soon from WP:GAN/R. Geometry guy 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We need somebody with a burning interest in the American road system. That's not me. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there doesn't appear to be many people who have that intrest, other than the members of the USRD itself. I don't know how to resolve this, but I was thinking we could send a notice to the GA wikiproject and see if they could ramp up reviews. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The universe has exploded! 

message: Environmental sciences is not listed and doesn't fit any of the existing headings because it is a cross-discipline between all five of the existing headings. Would anybody object to its addition in alphabetic order?
#Biology and medicine
#Chemistry and materials science
#Environmental sciences
#Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy
#Meteorology and atmospheric sciences
#Physics and astronomy
- Neparis (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would, sorry. Many articles are cross-disciplinary, and choices have to be made. Proliferating subtopics instead of making these hard choices is not the right way to proceed. If an environmental science article is not suitable for "Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy" or "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences", then I suggest filing it under "Geography" (a subtopic of "Geography and places"). Geometry guy 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: PS. Another option to consider for some articles in this field is "Engineering". Geometry guy 19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think filing everything under A (for "Article about...") would be simplest... EyeSereneTALK 19:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The last thing that GA needs right now is more categories. An 'Environmental sciences' category probably won't be used much, and most of the articles are interdisciplinary and fit fairly easily under one of the other subcategories. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GAN#Natural_sciences]] — subheadings