Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Archive 2

message: Updating it after you've done a sweep would be quite easy, just putting your date-stamped signature over any previous recorded mark. Hopefully this will make coordination a bit easier. Should it be put at the talk page for WP:GA? Or is this the best place for it?
I have linked the current location for the sweeping chart on the new open tasks template for the project. TheGrappler 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, maybe it should have a subpage on the WikiProject, a bit like /General? TheGrappler 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recording sweeps

message: I thought it would be an idea to set up a shortcut to the WikiProject - WP:WGA was unclaimed, and it seems pretty unambiguous. TheGrappler 16:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:WGA]]

message: I think the use of the word "fail" throughout Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations and in the template names is a bit strong. It may imply to the casual Wikipedia reader that the article is actually bad ("this article was nominated as a good article but failed" would not be much of a leap to "this is a bad article" in many minds I'm sure). I'd suggest some softer language be used. As I see it, this process is supposed to be a "win win" situation (editors either see their article "promoted" or get some valuable feedback; there should be no such thing as "fail"). --kingboyk 18:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, "fail" might not be the best of wording... at the very least, we should continue to make sure that casual readers don't see too much unwarranted negative language. For example,  alreasy uses neutral language; I think the fact that it technically has "fail" in its name isn't really so much of a problem. Melchoir 02:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reviewed 3 articles and failed them, using "PASS/FAIL" for each section mentioned in WP:WIAGA. Maybe I should have used YES/NO/ALMOST...? Bugmuncher 13:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fail" 

message: I have listed as one of the aims of the project, improving articles to good status. I believe this is actually one of the things this project does - the aim of constructive comments in reviews of articles that don't currently meet the criteria is precisely to bring them up to the criteria! Also, I know that in borderline cases, I have actually helped out (copyedits, providing images or sorting out image copyright status), and I am sure others are the same. I couldn't have done that without the help of WP:GA.TheGrappler 22:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I added a box to the wikiproject page to add a bit more color. It was adapted from the Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones. I hope it makes the wikiproject stand out more. Tarret 19:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Great job! --Siva1979Talk to me 19:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say I don't think this is a good idea.  Tastes vary, and I may be the only one but to me it does not look visually appealing at all.  I prefer to just stick with the standard way pages look.  Worldtraveller 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to agree with this. The page doesn't look too bad, but I feel its structure is confusing, and it makes it more difficult to edit.  -- Run!  22:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Page

message: Following suggestion, I've set up a daughter project that will be concerned specifically with articles that are well-written and illustrated, but lack references. I feel that these are a particular quality concern for Wikipedia, and should be given proper attention. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daughter project [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced GA|Unreferenced GA]] 

message: I only began to review articles last night, and I've done three of them. What I'm noticing so far is that it's a lot easier to fail an article than it is to pass one. Is this normal? I don't want to be a person that says "no" all the time, but of the three I reviewed, only one appeared to be even close to GA criteria... and none of them had leads that described the article. Bugmuncher 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think this is good.  I probably pass about a third of the articles I review, I'd guess.  GA standards are only as high as those of the most lenient reviewer, and the comments you leave when you fail an article are probably the most useful part of the process, so don't be afraid to fail nominations!  Obvious things like inadequate leads, lack of references, untagged images should definitely be picked on.  Keep up the good work! Worldtraveller 14:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Passing and Failing

message: Template:Gan-fail has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. TheJC TalkContributions 22:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Gan-fail 

message: Firstly, I think you should read my ideas at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Nominations#Good_Article_Drive_and_other_suggestions. Please respond there.
Secondly, I have sent two articles - Yahoo! and NeoPets to Wikipedia:Peer review. I am sure that if the peer review is successful, these articles can definitely become Good Articles. Please go to Peer review and give your comments regarding these articles. If you have sufficient expertise on the subject of the articles, we could collaborate to improve these articles into Good Articles.
Lastly, it looks like many people confuse the Good Articles WikiProject with the Good Articles proccess. We should make the distinction clear.
Just my 2 cents.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My 2 cents. 

message: Featured Articles and Good Articles are both Wikipedia processes to recognize quality articles. I created a proposal for greater co-ordination and integration between the two processes, so that both processes will be more successful in their aim of recognizing quality articles. Please read and participate in the discussion on the village pump. Thanks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal 

message: I've been doing a bit of reviewing lately and kind of like it. So I signed on to the project. I'd like to know what all goes into a sweep. Does it include looking for the GA cat on the main page or on the article page? If so, do I record that, too? --CTSWyneken(talk) 14:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweeps 

message: While looking at articles that have failed GA nominations, I noticed that many of the articles failed due to the fact that there were no citations (criteria 2). I then looked at some articles that passed and noticed some did not cite any sources. When I looked at the article history, I found at least 3 articles did not go through the nomination procedure. Someone came by and just slapped on the GA template on the talk page. The editors of the article did not even comment. I delisted the 3 articles leaving a message in each talk page to add citations and resubmit through the nomination procedure. I pause now because I am wondering if this is the proper thing to do. Were these articles given GA status under different criteria in the past? --RelHistBuff 11:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there's a problem, just yesterday I came across a clearly failing article myself that was put on the list, it's on the disputes page now though because somehow someone can't tell that it isn't NPOV :/. What happened was, we used to do sweeps through the list every so often and delist stuff that failed, but I don't think anyone's done that in awhile. Patrolling the list from time to time is probably a good idea, and don't worry, you did the right thing to delist if they failed the critera. Homestarmy 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Came across a situation where an article was "nominated" by a listing on GAC, but the nomination template was never placed on the talk page. One of the regular editors was surprised to find a GA-failed template appear suddenly, and would like to remove the template. Is this OK? Gimmetrow 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality standards question

message: Dear members of WikiProject Good articles,
I would like to draw your attention to this article and the review request that has been placed concerning its promotion to GA. I believe this case might create an important precedent as to the interpretation of the GA criteria, so your participation is vital. Please note that people direclty involved in the editing of the article and the previous discussion on its talk page have been asked not to participate, so the future of this and similar nominations depends solely on your opinions.
Thank you, Bravada, talk - 23:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rather unusual, the disputes page is open to everyone for comment. (Unless, you know, your banned from editing or something) Homestarmy 01:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did not want to repeat the same discussion we already had, and couldn't find consensus. The review request was put up to gather external opinions on the subject. What is yours? Bravada, talk - 02:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Passenger vehicles in the United States]] under review 

message: I'm currently having a discussion with some members of the Wikiproject Poker about reliable sources, namely the use of a personal website to serve as the primary source for biographies. The discussion is going on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and on the particular article's talk page Talk:Ram Vaswani. I'd be interested in the thoughts of other GA reviewers since one of the poker project members seems to think my concern about reliable sources is "reinventing the wheel". Agne 02:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A personal website is not a "good" source, (WP:V) so therefore, I would say it would not count for an article being well-referenced. Homestarmy 13:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I do not believe that the reference site in question is a personal website. The Wikipedia definition, for example, indicates that a personal website cannot be used for commercial purposes. As the site in question is used in part for commercial purposes, then I feel the personal website argument is not valid. Furthermore, the website is owned by a company rather than a person. Essexmutant 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As Vaswani is one of the owners of the Herndon Mob site, the site qualifies as Wikipedia:Reliable Sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves. You're right, Agne. Self-published material should always be reported as the POV of the publisher, and not as general fact, until such time as there is independent corroboration of that material. Similarly, references from the New York Daily News would be considered of limited value in an article about Rupert Murdoch. In general, if a self-published source is reliable, then other reliable sources will cite it. Until then, it should be avoided. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 21:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Sources for GA articles 

message: I just went through the War and military section and it does take some time. I found that quite a few articles have a very small number of citations but overall would not pass the well referenced criteria. I modify the note a bit for those. If anyone else want to adopt a category to work through, feel free. If Slambo takes Transport that leaves us with
*Art, architecture and archaeology - Done
*Awards and decorations - Done
*Biology and medicine
*Chemistry and materials science
*Culture and society
*Economics and business
*Education
*Engineering and technology
*Food and drink - Done
*Geography and places
*Geology, geophysics and mineralogy
*History
*Language
*Law
*Literature
*Mathematics - Done
*Media - Done
*Music - Done 
*Philosophy - Done
*Physics and astronomy - Done (Outside of the Hurricanes/Tropical storm articles there are QUITE a few in this cat that are missing in-line cites)
*Politics and government - Done
*Psychology - Done
*Religion - Done
*Royalty, nobility and heraldry - Done
*Sport and games-Done (Sheesh. I didn't know there COULD be so many references for Pokemon articles :p)
*Transport-Slambo? In progress
*War and Military- Done
How about if you are in the process of notifying the articles w/o or few in-lines, you make a note here and update when that category has been done? Agne 21:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very good idea, and I see it progressing very quickly, but we shouldn't forget about the actual re-assessment of articles according to all WIAGA criteria. I have User:Lincher/GA on my watchlist and no change to it was made since September 20. While current nominations are more or less closely monitored, the list still contains quite many articles that have serious flaws on many accounts, the citation thing notwithstanding. So, I guess if we want to really make the GA status meaningful, we need to deal with that ASAP - with 70 members of the WikiProject, it should be possible to achieve within a reasonable timespan (a month?) Bravada, talk - 15:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope to go through the rail transport starting tonight.  Slambo (Speak) 15:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to note that it might not be the best idea for a member of a given WikiProject to re-review the articles from that field, as he or she might have an inadvertently more "lenient" approach, and there is also a chance he or she has some personal connections to the authors. For example, my main field of "specialization" are automobiles, but I would not like to review automobile GAs, not only because a significant part of them were actually created by me :D , but also because my relations with the authors of the other articles might affect my judgement. Bravada, talk - 15:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  It took me a little while to get my own thoughts together and to read other editors' comments on the issue, but here is my plan of action...  For the articles in the rail transport section where I have access to the references used (and as a researcher and an author in this field, my personal library of reference material is constantly growing), I will attempt to format inline citations as appropriate for the article.  For articles where I do not have access to the references listed, I will try to find some in my own library that can be added to further verify the facts that are there and only mark those where I cannot add inline citations myself.  So, in other words, I'm not just going through on a delisting action, but I plan on working to keep listed articles on the list.  Since WP:GAN was created, all of the rail transport articles that I've found to list have gone through the process and were reviewed by other editors (for example, I didn't write ALCO FA, but I put it up for nomination and followed through with the requested edits to get it listed; as another example, I did write California Southern Railroad and I followed the nomination procedures to get it listed).  Slambo (Speak) 20:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that I thought about it more (I am not good at this thinking thing, takes me some time), I guess that since we have agreed that two editors need to give positive reviews for the article to be kept on the list, it wouldn't be that terrible if one of them was a member of the WikiProject, especially given that he or she might have, as you do, access to the sources cited, and perhaps even improve the article on the way. It would just not be proper for a fellow WikiProject member to place a second review - it would be good if the other review would be from somebody from the "outside". Bravada, talk - 21:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't get as far as I wanted to last night since I ended up replacing SuSE with Kubuntu (very smooth install, BTW), but I did get to updating one article (Graniteville train disaster) early this morning.  My work and progress list is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article maintenance task force/GA updates.  Slambo (Speak) 13:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I just got through an initial scan looking at the references on these articles.  I would say that 11 out of the 85 articles currently on the list still meet the references requirements and use inline citations appropriately (articles that I wrote fall into both categories).  There are a few that are severely underreferenced, listing only one reference for what I consider a large block of text, and there are a couple that need better lead sections, and even one with no images.  I will be working on these as I can, but if anyone else wants to hop in with additional comments on the work list, please do. Slambo (Speak) 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's either this, or we just automatically fail articles on the list which have no inline citations. The debate over including this criteria has been......extensive. Homestarmy 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not only that (inline citations), although it is important that all articles comply with the new standard (some only need to have a few citations added and that's it), it's mostly about a huge amount of articles were sneaked into the list in the past when the system was less tight and are now quite embarassing and compromising the GA status. All of them need to be reviewed now that we have a more or less stable WIAGA and a sufficient number of people monitoring new nominations, to make sure all articles on the list are really Good Articles. The inline citation thing is just about notifying the editors of articles in advance, so that they could fix that and so that nobody would actually have to delist an article about that - it has been proposed very early when discussing the re-review to prevent any inconvenience to authors of really good GAs that miss inline citations. Bravada, talk - 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category List for notice about In-line citations 

message: The change to Wikipedia:What is a good article? mandating inline citations was not really done under consensus, IMHO. I have changed it back, as explained at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?. --Kjoonlee 10:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the talk page of WP:GAC where most of the discussions concerning this issue took place. RelHistBuff 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where specifically? I couldn't find any discussions there. Not even in the archives of the talk page. --Kjoonlee 11:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the WP:GAC talk page and it has been discussed with a lengthly detail and under consensus. Please do not change it. — Indon (reply) — 11:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specific section is Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_candidates#Citation_of_sources_should_be_required_for_GA. RelHistBuff 11:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandating inline citations 

message: Dear All,
When re-reviewing articles, please note that we do NOT only re-review them for compliance with cirterium 2b. We re-review them for compliance with the entire WIAGA, and actually since 2b is a new criterion, we need to be a little more forgiving with regard to that, hence the whole idea of warning editors beforehand (which went awry, unfortunately).
So, when you are reassessing the article, please do not concentrate only on references and sources, and leave a full review covering all the aspects of the article that full under specific WIAGA criteria. I have just seen an editor delist an article just because it had its references combined with further reading. This is exactly what will bring thunder and lightning over GA, and will cause even more nasty discussions like the one we are having now.
Please spend a bit more time when re-reviewing (or reviewing for the first time, for that matter) and do leave comments on all criteria, even if one of them is enough to fail the article.
Thanks,
Bravada, talk - 14:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I tag on a not so important notice here, it might get noticed :-)  It's a small issue, but it would be so nice if the GA reviewers would remind editors to correctly place ref tags.  It's such a small item, but so unsightly and irritating to fix, and perhaps reviewers aren't aware of WP:FN.  Sandy 15:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I guess no mortal human being will ever dig through the entire Manual of Style (which is even self-contradictory at times), but I would advise all reviewers to take a look at the above link, as well as WP:LAYOUT. Those are pretty basic things, and they just stick out to more experienced editors, so sweeping the articles for that can save us some embarassment when a GA we reviewed is then submitted for FAC. Bravada, talk - 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most frequent WP:GTL problems are very common:  amounts to making sure the final sections are ordered as 1) See also, 2) Notes, (footnotes - inline cites), 3) References (if separate general refs are given), and 4) some combination of either External links or Further reading, when given.  Often, See also - which is Wiki content - is placed last, or Wiki content is placed in Further reading: simple things to fix, and just minor irritants.   A frequent WP:MOS problem is repetitious words in section headings or overwhelming, rambling Table of Contents (a tipoff to the possibility of a poorly-structured article :-), so reviewiing that guideline may be helpful.  A compact, well-organized TOC offers a good indication the article organization is well thought out.  Sandy 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi I just wrote a comment on the special relativity Talk page that the sequence there must be changed, as the "See also" section forces hides the footnotes and references from the immediate view of the reader - "See also" obviously should not be squeezed in-between the article and its notes and references, but belongs with "further reading". Harald88 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an article fails GA criterion, I will fail it - I don't care what any other editor says. I review articles according to what WP:WIAGA says, not some editor. If the criterion isn't there for enforcement, it shouldn't be there at all. LuciferMorgan 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE 

message: Hi WPGA, in attempting to produce in-line citations on the Lord Voldemort article, I figured that Harvard referencing was the most appropriate. However, there are many editions of the Harry Potter books, and thus the page numbers in each vary. I only own one set. Do you suggest just noting from which edition the page numbers come, or would it be better to use the WikiProject Harry Potter templates; for example  which yields ? Of course,  would appear in the references section. Does that suffice? Thanks, --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 19:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edition would probably help make it more reliable, i'd do it that way. Homestarmy 20:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-line citations on [[Lord Voldemort]] 

message: Hello, I decided to try my hand at reviewing a request for GA status today for the first time and I'd appreciate it if someone who has some past experience would review what I said about it as the nominator/author of the article is questioning a lot of what I said.  The comments I made can be found at Talk:Virginia State Route 16 and then the author has brought discussion to me at User_talk:Metros232#Virginia_State_Route_16.  This  is the revision of the article I reviewed (since then the user has made one edit to a reference, but that's it as of right now.  Any comments would be appreciated, thanks, Metros232 00:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm and considering the user just now called my comments anal retentive , any help would be much appreciated right now.  Metros232 00:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I offended you, but that's the view I now have of this process: removing red links just to make it a "good article", mhen it is better to keep those links for when the articles are written. --NE2 00:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the Redlinks break the style guides, but their certainly very annoying. I think you made the right call though, the references only seem to apply to the history section alone, that's about one half of a well-referenced article, which just isn't enough in my opinion anyway. Homestarmy 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole description is from USGS topos. --NE2 05:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops... I forgot to include that as a source in this article, like I did in others. Fixed. --NE2 17:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Virginia State Route 16]] review 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 13:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Please see Talk:Charles_Darwin. Is it possible for someone to edit the Good Article box (2nd from the top) to correctly say "a biologist?" I haven't been able to figure out how to do this myself. Thanks so much for your condideration! Keesiewonder 18:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks for your reply. I have an inquiry in as you suggested. Keesiewonder 18:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question @ GA Box Text for Biology Articles 

message: Was there another page for GA reviewers that had reviewers' areas of interest, and their approximate numbers of GA reviews? I swear I edited a page like that at one time, and now I can't find it. Twinxor t 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember that too, but I don't know where it is either... Homestarmy 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its over at Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers RHB 14:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for related project page 

message: Created :Category:Good articles needing attention as an administrative cat. Actually, articles I place in there in the near future are those that may be delisted because they have been warned already, but the category will exist for other purposes as well. --Ling.Nut 13:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Created [[:Category:Good articles needing attention]] 

message: There are currently over 100 articles in a pileup on the nominees page, and the other reviewers and I could really use an extra hand. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PLEASE HELP

message: Hi everyone! Just to let you all know, I have recently nominated all category specific GA templates for deletion. I invite everyone to take place in the discussion. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 00:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Specific GA Templates for TfD 

message: There's accumulation of the articles. I compared December 4  with March 29  and found that about 40 articles have been added to the list. There were 122 articles on December 4 and 160 articles on March 29. Approximately the rate of accumulation is 10 article per month. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the build-up is already being discussed here: Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates#Slow process.--DorisHノート 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: In what started as a discussion on quick-failing at Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates, I realized that what is really needed is a more extensive guide to reviewing Good Articles.  I was WP:BOLD and started a Draft version as a subpage of my userpage.  The draft can currently be found at:  User:Jayron32/Guide to reviewing Good Articles.  Please make any changes as you see fit, and leave any comments you have on the talk page.  I propose a goal of having the draft finalized within 2 weeks from today (by April 13) and moved to the GA project by that date.  Thank you all for your attention to this.  --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guide to Good Article reviews: DRAFT PROPOSAL 

message: Hi everyone. A week or two ago, I started a proposed reworking of the criteria; the changes are not major, but there are enough to influence the review template and other things. Only three users have commented so far, and I feel more people should be involved in the discussion before the changes are implemented. Thanks. — Deckiller 00:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article Criteria

message: I have proposed an official award for our project. Discuss, vote etc at Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals#WikiProject_Good_articles. It needs consensus to be accepted so come out and voice your opinion. IvoShandor 11:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project award

message: I would like to let GA project participants know about a proposed bot to update some of the elements of :Template:WikiProjectGATasks.  There's a discussion going on at a subpage of my user page that I created for the purpose.  I posted a note at the GAC candidates talk page, but I didn't know about the template and now realize it might have been sensible to post here too.
Anyway, please comment as you see fit.  Daniel Vandersluis has agreed to code the bot, and has already posted a request for approval.  At this point I think the first task would be to update the overdue GAC list automatically, instead of by hand; that will automatically populate some of the elements of the task box.  Other options are described at the page mentioned above. Mike Christie (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot to update parts of the WikiProjectGATasks template 

message: Is this appropriate? I've been looking through all the policies, but I'm not finding anything. --LaraLoveTalk/Contribs 18:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not. See WP:SELF. GreenJoe 23:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing Wikipedia as a source

message: Hi,  I'm on my second review - the first one was "easy" because it clearly failed.  The current one I'm not so sure about - I've placed it on hold pending serious copy-editing and some additional references.  But I'm 'worried' about passing an article that isn't up to standard.  Can someone hold my hand on this one?  The article is Bristol Harbour and I left some comments on its talk page.  I'd appreciate it if noone interfered with the review though, excpet to tell me what I did wrong!  Cheers --Fritzpoll 17:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments are really good, IMO, and certainly tell the editors exactly what to do to get a GA.  So I don't think there's a problem.  Certainly, don't pass it yet, wait for the changes to *all* be made, but after that I don't see a problem. If you do have any more questions about it, then I'd be happy to co-review it. G1ggy! 22:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a reliable on-hold decision to me. Homestarmy 22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the checks and encouragement - much appreciated!  :)  --Fritzpoll 23:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to be a better GA Reviewer 

message: *See .  I propose creating a similar template for Good Articles, so that the GA symbol  would be in the top right corner of those articles.  We could call this template, .  What do y'all think?  Smee 23:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty certain such a template was the subject of a recent TfD... --Fritzpoll 23:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really?  I was not aware of that.  Could you point me to the TfD discussion?  Smee 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's here --Fritzpoll 00:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, not as recent as I thought! --Fritzpoll 00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Also see discussion on this page on the topic here --Fritzpoll 00:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think, if nothing else, you would have to get the whole wikipedia community to reach consensus on doing so, not just us lot who hover around these parts :)  --Fritzpoll 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, good points, indeed.  At any rate, thanks for the edification about all this stuff.  Smee 00:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating a template for Good Articles 

message: A month-long backlog elimination drive has started. There are several awards to be won. For details please go to Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAC backlog elimination drive