Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force

message: I have just looked at the articles for a GA review, and it seems the problems are still there, as always. If this "Project quality task force" really wants to make a change (and radically cut its workload) it would rapidly FAIL most of the articles that are up for review. "Head 'em off at the pass" seems to be the case, and explain WHY. Any editor can do it, so why don't you, if you are so concerned?--andreasegde (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of an answer confirms my belief that this project only wants some kind of aggressive/insulting power, and not help at all. It's sad... --andreasegde (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you feel that way - there are ongoing discussions on other pages concerning GA nomination and the backlog, and this page is watched less than others as the Project Quality Task Force is only a sub-project of GA with smaller participation. You may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Proposed solution to Backlog Problem and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#New proposal of guide for nominators. Such discussions are perhaps best held on these pages, as more members of the GA WikiProject will see and respond to them. EyeSereneTALK 09:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA articles

message: An editor left a message at talk:Same-sex marriage in Canada stating that he decided that the article no longer passes muster and that he had delisted it. This occurred without notice. From an earlier discussion, it sounds as though notice is usually given. Why wasn't it this time? It appears to me that there is a procedure for delisting at WP:GAR. Following that procedure allows editors at the article to address the problems before it is delisted. Now, after getting refs for quotes, adding a paragraph or two to the lead, and dropping some links with  tags, editors have to go through the nomination process again. This seems like a rather drastic course to have taken given the relative simplicity of the changes required. -Rrius (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No notice 

message: A proposal to make some changes to the way we review Good Article nominations is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GA review reform. All interested editors are invited to participate. EyeSerenetalk 11:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA community input requested 

message: * Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup templates on GA pages 

message: Not sure if this is the right page to be asking, but I would like to request that the PlayStation Home article be evaluated for GA. Thanks. JDC808 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The place to go is WP:GAN: check out the instructions for nominations there. Geometry guy 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article to be evauluated for GA 

message: I see that the sweep list is clear of everything apart from GAHs. Even if some of you recharge your batteries quickly, could I suggest that everyone pauses at least until the end of the year before considering another sweep. 
First, the whole unreferenced BLP business means that a lot of people are being drummed into one article improvement drive and probably don't want to be distracted by another.
In the mean time, there are various review or assessment pages with backlogs which could use your skills. I know that there are plans for a WP:GAN backlog drive next month which is the most obvious place for GA Sweepers to go next. However, the people at WP:FLC are finding it takes longer than they would like before they have enough opinions to close assessments. WP:PR, WP:DYK and WP:FAC might also appreciate input.
As far as other GA improvements are concerned, I noticed today that at the bottom of WP:GA there is a link to Wikipedia:Good articles/Cleanup listing. It seems rather odd having a page saying "These are some of our better articles. Oh and a lot are tagged as needing improvements." It might be worth removing the link and attaching it to this task force's page
The cleanup listing is several months old and I suspect (and hope) that most of the 1000-odd articles listed there have been swept since the list was generated. While I'm against another sweep, it might still be worth getting the bot to generate a new listing, to see how many articles are left. Project members might then check whether anything can be easily fixed, whether any tags are mistaken or unimportant and then review the rump.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure there will ever be the appetite to try something like sweeps again, certainly not from me anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. I was only active in the early part of the process (and kept meaning to come back and do 2was sure I was on 48 :P 6 more just to get to 50, but looks like I missed the boat). Congratulations to everyone anyway :) EyeSerenetalk 15:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to echo Malleus Fatuorum's thoughts, I don't think many are eager to jump into Sweeps again. Hopefully many of the cleanup listing articles have already been dealt with, but in extreme cases, the articles can always be brought to GAR. A new listing could be helpful for those interested though. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I got involved because of the "green dot in mainspace" argument, but that all seems such a long time ago now. Never again. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I'm assuming another discussion will be started about it in the coming weeks. I think I joined Sweeps to help review a few articles on the side while reviewing GANs. Unfortunatley the problem I have of needing to finish things I start meant that I reviewed way more than a few... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations to the sweepers. and thoughts 

message: I'm sorry to interrupt, but...
There should be a button on the bottom of every article that says "Read to completion" or something. You could trace your browsing history more intimately. Study the patterns in the progression of thought patterns. I believe an implementation of this should be simple... However, how much more data would that cost? Is it too much? Or can only those who risk going too far find out how far they can really get?
Cool beans
Nineball (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that have to do with this project?  Perhasp you should post at WP:PUMP Jezhotwells (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past, Present, Future 

message: Hello, I'm likely not in the correct location, but can you tell me how I can ask for an article to reviewed for Good Quality? This would be the Mozilla Firefox article. I know the article is not at good quality status, we just need some insight as to how we can improve the article. Thanks, Trewyy (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applying for good article status 

message: Hey folks! I stumbled upon :Category:Good articles without topic parameter as its the Backlog of the Week. I've been going through and adding topics to a number of these, but it seems like most of them became GAs in the last year and were given a subtopic. However, that subtopic didn't automatically place the article in the parent topic or remove it from the category "Good articles without topic parameter". I've never been involved with the GA process, so I'm not sure if there's some reasoning behind this, or if this is undesired behavior. Thoughts? Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good articles without topic parameter 

message: Adding Arts to topic= doesn't do anything. Also, shouldn't this be split at least into Music, Architecture, Fine arts and sculpture and Other arts related. The topic doesn't immediately come to mind for music articles, at least — Iadmc♫talk   23:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art and architecture 

message: Hey all, just writing it to find out what I can about A) learning more about the task force, what to look for as an editor, and B) possibly joining the task force! Been reading through the page but wanted to get some feedback from task force members. Thanks! PcPrincipal (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining the task force 

message: It looks like this page isn't used any longer. Anyone opposed to marking it with  and de-linking it from the sidebar at Wikipedia:Good articles? Ajpolino (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be uncontroversial. A hat tip to the positive collaboration that happened here. Further questions should probably go to WT:GA or Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. Cheers. Ajpolino (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone opposed to marking this historical?