Archives

18 March 2006 - 15 April 2006 15 April 2006 - June 3 2006 April - Jun 2006 Jun - Aug 2006 Sept 2006 - April 2007 April 2007 - Present

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I have quick-failed the article on Steve Fossett, due to criterion 5 (stability) of the GA criteria. The search for him continues, and he has not been confirmed either dead or alive. Once he is found, whether a live person or a corpse, editing on this article is sure to draw a significant volume of edits. Even looking at the article's current edit history, we can see a lot of recent edits in the past couple of days. So I think it's best to hold off on this, at least until his story gets off the main news media. Dr. Cash 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. LaraLove 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Larry Craig be quick-failed as well for more or less the same reason? Given that a lot of the details and actions of the recent controversy are still unfolding, the article is not going to be stable as people rush to add in the facts of the case/resignation. Cheers, CP 19:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 15th September 2007. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Derek.cashman
2. Awadewit
3. Dihydrogen Monoxide
4. Peripitus
5. Noeticsage.
Epbr123 11:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a total of 3 reviews (I think) and came 3rd...wow... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wow! That's totally strange?!?! I seriously thought that I was lagging behind in reviews this past week, and thought that I did more reviews from back when I was at #3 or #5 on the list, or not even on the list at all! Though if you look at the **quality** of my reviews, I still think they're good, decent reviews, plus I have several articles still on hold, and I've been working through the old chemistry articles for the sweeps, so it's like I haven't been doing anything,... ;-)

Still, maybe we still need to get more reviewers involved in the system, particularly more reviewer interested in articles that fall under some of the less-reviewed categories, like the natural sciences? Plus, the backlog has slowly been creeping back up (currently at 173 not reviewed), which is quite high. If we could convince every participant of WikiProject Good Articles to just commit to reviewing the equivalent of one article per day, for the next two weeks, I bet we'd significantly reduce the backlog,... Any takers? Dr. Cash 04:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm usually doing well to manage two per week (unfortunately I sometimes have to work at work; you'd think they'd be more reasonable :P ). I'll do what I can with the backlog though ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think progress is slowly being made. I've gotten stuck in, and I imagine others have as well. For the first time in a while the count for the day was down on the previous days. Only by one, but at least it's some progress. :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to aim for one a day, but rarely make that. One every two days is good for me though... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm burned out from the last drive, and I'm trying to get into sweeps, but this is something that has occurred to me. We should encourage the editors that list nomination after nomination to take some reviews if they don't already, which I don't think most if any of them do. From looking over WP:GAC/R, I've noticed that there are a couple editors that consistently list multiple articles. The way I see it, if the articles are of GA quality, the nominator obviously understands the criteria and can spot of GA, right? If not, they're nominating articles that don't meet the criteria and are just bogging GAC down. So either way, there's something there to be addressed, in my opinion. LaraLove 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was going to start doing this anyhow. Perhaps we can get this added to the template(s). Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikiproject logic, shouldn't there be a Logic category for articles? (Whether logic belongs in Mathematics or in Philosophy is a standard religious issue, and makes it hard to know what category I should put a nomination... but nobody can argue with it going under Logic.) Disclaimer: I have no idea how new categories are handled, so I refrained from just trying to add one without checking here first. Nahaj 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles about logic are clearly mathematics, some are clearly philosophy. Creating a separate logic category for good articles will lead to a choice between three options instead of two, and I don't think it is a good idea. Geometry guy 20:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)l[reply]

You have a point... But if there were a logic category, then articles about logic could go under logic INSTEAD of under philosophy or mathematics. There would be no need to even consider putting them under the other two categories Nahaj 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, in the days when WP:GAR was called Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes, this page was known as Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations. Then people decided that using subpages for important processes was a bad idea and the name of this page was changed. Yet almost everything related to this process refers to nominations and nominees, never to candidates. So why is this page now called "Good article candidates" and not Wikipedia:Good article nominations? Well, it nearly was: both options were presented here and after a very little discussion, "candidate" was chosen, apparently for coherence with WP:FAC, though internal consistency was not discussed at all.

I mention this because the inconsistency generates all sorts of errors which waste editors' time. For instance, in {{ArticleHistory}}, the standard terminology for this process is GAN, and an article which fails it has status FGAN. Most of the templates related to this project use an "N" or "nominee/nomination" instead of a "C" or "candidate". It is very confusing; editors sometimes get it wrong; errors are made; time is wasted; people complain; more time is wasted; etc.

Both User:LaraLove and I think it would save time in the long run if the terminology was consistent. There are obviously two ways to do this: use "candidates" everywhere or "nominations" everywhere. I checked out what changes these choices would require and here they are.

Option 1: Candidates

1. Move {{GAnominee}} to {{GACandidate}} leaving a redirect.
2. Reword {{GACandidate}} and change the name of the category into which candidates are placed (see next point).
3. Move Category:Good article nominees to Category:Good article candidates (requires an admin, unless it is a cut and paste.)
4. Move Category:Good article nominees currently on hold to Category:Good article candidates currently on hold and change its category.
5. Fix any links to these cats.
6. Reword {{GAonhold}} and change the name of the category it fills as in point 4.
7. Replace (preferably) all c.200 transclusions of {{GAnominee}} by {{GACandidate}} either using AWB or a bot.
8. Reword WP:GAC to reflect the change of name. (This rewording is the reason it is preferable to replace the transclusions in the previous point.)
9. Do something with Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA nominees task force.
10. Rename {{PGAN}}, {{FGAN}} and {{GANOH}}.
11. Update {{ArticleHistory}} to use FGAC as well as FGAN, and document the GAC terminology only.

Option 2: Nominations

1. Move this page to Wikipedia:Good article nominations leaving a redirect.
2. Change the title of section 1.  Done
3. Fix the redirects from WP:GAC, WP:GAN etc.

I don't mind doing the work, but option 2 seems a lot easier for everyone. Any thoughts? Preferences? Geometry guy 21:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that consistency is needed, and option 2 would be best, but maybe it should be called Wikipedia:Good article nominees as this would be more consistent with the template and categories. Epbr123 22:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I agree with Epbr. T Rex | talk 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominees works for me. LaraLove 01:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent). Yes. -- Ling.Nut 01:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 really does make more sense in this case, but if you really want the best consistency, we should change FAC to featured article nominations as well. Good luck on that one! Ha! Ha! ;-) Then again, if it were WP:GAN instead, we'd actually be diverging AWAY from FAC, instead of becoming more like it, so I guess it could be a good thing,... Personally, I don't care what it's called - as long as the link for WP:GAC still gets you there, so people can still find the page. Dr. Cash 04:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are we planning to keep the GA Review name or should that be changed to Good Article Disputes as well? --Nehrams2020 04:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at the moment appears to be to change the name to Good article reassessment. As for nominees/nominations, I prefer "nominations" for several reasons: (i) "nominee" is rather fanciful; (ii) "nominee" refers just to the nominated article, whereas "nomination" refers to the whole process; (iii) "nominee" isn't great English anyway, because a nominee is supposed to be a person, not an object. Anyway, it is not a big deal. Geometry guy 10:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I like this 'good article reassessment' idea,... ;-) Dr. Cash 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Option 2 looks good to me as well, but I think Geometry has good points concerning "nominee" vs. "nominations". Homestarmy 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The move of this page to Wikipedia:Good article nominations appears to be uncontroversial. However, it needs an admin to do it because the target page has had two minor edits since it was created as a redirect. I'm happy to follow up with the subpages and redirects. Geometry guy 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nehrams2020 may be willing to do it as GA's newest admin. LaraLove 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this would be a useful subsection of this list: I wanted to add a long distance footpath to the list of candidates and eventually parked it under "Recreation, Miscellaneous". It felt more like "Geography" but none of the subdivisions thereof. Is there a procedure for adding subdivisions of headings in the list? PamD 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen quite a few new category requests on the talk page recently, I'm not sure if this is exactly the best way to go about it. We want to maintain the best consistency between categories on WP:GA and WP:GAC, so adding a new category is a lot more complex than simply creating the new category by doing a new subsection header at WP:GAC - you also need to synch both pages with the bot(s) that keep tabs on both the GA page as well as the GAC backlog. Rather than having nominators being held up by a necessarily bureaucratic process of creating a new category at GAC, I think it would be much better and more efficient to add these articles under the miscellaneous category instead. WikiProject Good Articles would then keep track of the number of articles in each category at the WP:GA page, and adjust the categories (adding new or merging) on a semi-regular basis. Dr. Cash 20:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 22nd September 2007. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Derek.cashman
2. Pursey
3. Noeticsage
4. GreenJoe
5. Canadian Paul.
Epbr123 11:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow. Dr Cash must have seriously done a stack of reviews, because I did NINE MILLION(not to scale). Well done Dr Cash :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact now I'm tempted to make sure I nail it next week ;) I keep coming second! And look out, it's my week off :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Two weeks in a row! Thanks! Fortunately, there have been quite a few science & geography articles to take a crack at,... maybe that trend will keep up,... ;-) Dr. Cash 17:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<irony>Derek, you do realise this isn't about getting some nerdy award don't you?</irony> - good work! The Rambling Man 17:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there's currently a discussion here on whether or not there should be citations in the lead. I have no personal preference, although the policy as stated when I reviewed Dungeons & Dragons (album) stated that there should be and I pointed that out in the review. The article is currently on hold for a variety of reasons but, I think that those little things will be cleared up in less than a day, which will probably mean that within 24 hours the only one of my unaddressed points will be references in the lead. I personally don't care which way they do it, and the second-to-last thing I'd want to do is have to fail an otherwise good article because of something silly like this. The last thing that I'd want to do, however, is pass a good article that has a clear (in the eyes of more experienced GA reviewers anyhow) MoS violation. So, as a somewhat-neutral editor, although one who would very much like to pass the aforementioned article once my concerns have been addressed, can an article be passed without citations in the lead? Cheers, CP 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this problem as well when I reviewed articles. The tendency I'm seeing is that references in the lead are a must for Biographies of living persons. But in terms of other topics, references in the lead are not essential provided that the same point is mentioned in the main body with a reference attached. Although if the point in the lead is a quote, a statement, some kind of statistics and figures, or something negative, then a reference should be there. Oidia (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always seemed to me that references can go in the lead whenever editors feel it is necessary, generally when something controversial is being cited. I don't see what MoS violation that causes. Homestarmy 00:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went and had a skim through several Good Articles on a variety of topics. It appears that most of them have references in the lead. So like Homestarmy said, if something is controversial, debatable, or questionable in the lead, then a reference should be there. Oidia (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't require references in the lead, and it's not something that GAR requires. Quotes would be an exception, but isn't it stated somewhere in the MOS that you should avoid quotes in the lead? Anyway, this has been posted to the Village Pump (Proposals) also. LaraLove 00:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, quick responses, but it's good to know that it's GAR approved to not have references in the lead. I'm assuming, though, that there's nothing wrong if the articles DO happen to have citations in them already? Cheers, CP 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no prob with that I don't think. There are articles out there with references in the lead, and sometimes it does avoid arguments. I usually take the view that you can't over reference though ;) - Shudde ^talk 02:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't reference the leads in my GAC's, but in my most recent one, Long hair, I felt a need to cite everything. Everyone seemed to have an opinion on long hair and challenged everything, even though it was already cited later in the article. Wrad 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anything wrong with having cites in the lead, necessarily. LaraLove 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Of course the lead should sum the article, and the article should already be sourced. But some things need to be in the lead and not necessaryly in the article (say, genre of a movie), and thus need to be cited there.SidiLemine 11:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)---[reply]

The genre of a movie shouldn't be cited. That's easily attainable information; unchallengeable. The genre of a band, however, which is not so easily attainable (surprisingly) should be sourced, but in the infobox rather than the lead. LaraLove 11:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion linked concerns both footnotes and citations (which are not the same thing: footnotes are just one way to cite a source, and they can be used for other parenthetical material). In the lead section, both are permissible, but neither is required, as long as the lead summarizes the article (as it should) and all material requiring citation in the article is cited. Geometry guy 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This review is not acceptable. LuckyLouie has been deeply involved in the article, and is biased regarding the subject, being a member of Wikiproject Rational Skepticism. I would ask that any reviewer of this controversial subject have impeccable credentials of neutrality, and that editors who feel strongly about the paranormal recuse themselves from reviewing. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is nonsense, Martin. You cannot invalidate GA candidate reviewers comments because they are members of WikiProject:Paranormal or Wikiproject:Rational_Skepticism. - LuckyLouie 03:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he can. The purpose of GAC is to have an external editor review the article against criteria, not to have someone who's worked on it extensively do so. This page's header states "Anyone who shows understanding of the criteria and the instructions below can review an article, as long as you are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed" (bold added). LuckyLouie can review the article, but someone else needs to pass/fail it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Martiphi. Not because of the projects he's involved in, but because he's made a considerable amount of edits. Judging by the history, he's made at least 20-30 edits since May. An unbiased reviewer should be found. That said, LuckyLouie is welcome to make comments, give criticisms, and help out with the review. He just shouldn't be the final word on it's nomination, in my opinion. Drewcifer 03:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did not mean to imply he is unwelcome as an NPOV editor, or that he shouldn't make comments on the article. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made only 14 edits to the article all together. Would I be considered a major contributor? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up on the rules here, but in addition to editing the article you have made numerous edits to the talk page, been heavily involved in the debates, and have expressed strong views on the article. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not a major contributor to the article itself. I voice my opinions on the talk page but that's about it. Are we looking for someone who has neither edited the article or spent time on the talk page? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're looking for a neutral and uninvolved party. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Lucky reviewing the article is not kosher. VanTucky ^Talk 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not kosher. Doesn't really matter whether it's about the paranormal or about washing machines. Someone who's edited the article should not promote it. Protects the integrity of the system. A quick look at the article's edit stats shows that Lucky is one of the top five editors of the article. Wrad 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is really another issue here, and I hesitate to bring it up because it doesn't seem to have backing in policy. But the article is every bit as controversial as abortion or evolution or gay rights or Scientology whatever. It needs a truly neutral editor. I suggest that this stipulation be added to the rules for a GA reviewer. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]