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.

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.

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.

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

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 moved the page to Wikipedia:Good article nominations per request. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that I've updated User:StatisticianBot to reflect the page changes. The report pages have been moved too, to match the rest of the page changes, and can now be found at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report or WP:GAN/R, although the old pages persist as redirects, of course. If anyone notices any hiccups due to the page transfer, let me know so that I can fix it. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:34, 25 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]

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)[reply]

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)[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]

I have not yet seen any problems arise due to editors reviewing articles in subject areas that they simply have an opinion about, have you? In this particular case, the reviewer clearly has contributed heavily to this article, he doesn't simply have an opinion about the article's subject. Homestarmy 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's pretty easy to tell whether an editor judges the article neutrally by what they say in the review. If there is a problem, it can always be brought up here. I think we need to draw a distinction between a non-neutral editor and a non-neutral review. You can have personal opinions about things and still give an article a fair review. Wrad 00:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as long as there is some recourse. Just your opinion, are there editors who hang out around here who would take an interest and help resolve any disagreements which might arise? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Wrad 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest cases happen now and again at GA/R, and they seem to resolve themselves adequatly. Homestarmy 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My "review" consists of the opinion that the article needs further work and I give specific suggestions for improving it. I do understand that it cannot be counted as an official vote for or against GA status. - LuckyLouie 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it just seemed like you were giving an actual review :/. Is the article still a candidate? If so, I don't think there's much to seriously dispute here. Homestarmy 00:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a judgement call on whether your review reads neutrally Lucky. Editors who have contributed to an article should not review it, period. GA-status is not something to be conferred on one's own work. VanTucky ^Talk 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like things are under control. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That't not the issue, it's whether the topic is supported by sources itself. T Rex | talk 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• T Rex, you asked for a second opinion of an experienced editor and that is what User:Dihydrogen Monoxide has given you. As I have stated before "Original Research" did not go into this article. Everything has it's verfiable source as required by Wikipedia policy. This is an original article which I created. Look at the "Hispanic" surnames or the place of birth of those Hispanics who do not have Hispanic surnames. This artcle is about "Hispanic Admirals" per se and is not advancing to make a point. When you gather different ideas or sources to advance another position, then that would be original research. However, this is a listing of various Hispanic admirals in a well organized article with the proper title. I always write about themes and subjects which you rarely find in the internet. To give you an example of my work, you can check these: Military history of Puerto Rico and Hispanic Americans in World War II. Hey I know that you are well intentioned and I take it as such, but I hope that another editor will look into the situation and make a decision since it has been almost a month since the article has been nominated. Thank you Tony the Marine 06:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the article GA class (01:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)) the debate was dormant and other then haveing few sources the article is above GA class. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talk) 01:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{Y}} and {{N}} 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 {{PGAN}}, but the checks and X's would be useful for me.

What do other folks think? – Scartol · Talk 16:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could use {{GAList}} instead of {{PGAN}}. Geometry guy 17:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

In the good way, I hope ;) Geometry guy 17:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{Y}} and {{N}} 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). {{GAList}}, 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 {{Y}} and {{N}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Does this all really need to be mandatory? Some people (like myself) might prefer to give a GA review in paragraph format, explaining how an article meets or does not meet the GA criteria, rather than running through a list, or using any templates at all. Besides, those templates can't list specifics, so a reviwer won't know exactly where to look in an article to find old errors, i'd hope a reviewer would look for violations of any of the GA criteria in a review, not just the ones mentioned by a previous reviewer. Homestarmy 18:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fantastic! You should write the "GA review best practice" essay! Geometry guy 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(undent) Yeah, I guess {{GAList}} is the best option, but the aesthete in me just doesn't like the side-by-side (and lowercase) a and b style. I'd like to make an alternate, but I don't feel comfortable with subst and /doc stuff yet. If I design something, could someone else help me or do that part? – Scartol · Talk 01:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jumping back in late to the conversation. I don't think any one format should be required or even recommended. I started with one, went to another, then decided on the way I do it now (example here). I use GAList (although will now use GAList2) and then list issues below that in the order they appear in the article with the same section headers used in the article. I think that makes it easiest for the custodians to find issues. LaraLove 03:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the article Dale Smith (playwright), I come to find that its primary author is, well, the author himself (via his account of User:Sheriff Bernard). I am going to fail the article on other grounds, but it brings up an important point: what effect should strong evidence of conflict of interest have on a GA review? VanTucky ^Talk 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckle. I think that a COI like this should be quick-fail. Isn't it a kind of WP:OR? – Scartol · Talk 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the article itself suffers in quality because of the COI, i'm not sure what the problem is :/. As long as the references don't say "This statement is true, because I said so. Signed: Dale Smith", or anything like that.... Homestarmy 02:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand with Homestarmy. Of course, such cases need extra caution, but there's no reason to deny self-written articles the GA review. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 02:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not okay not just because of the immediate potential for biased content, but because people should not be writing autobiographies, on general principle. Wikipedia is not a web host. Not only has the author self-cited anecdotally in directly editing, but his own website is used a "reliable source" for completely inappropriate verification. If that's not "suffering in quality", nothing is. VanTucky ^Talk 04:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this kind of problems are detected in the review, then they should be used as a basis of the fail. Predisposition against an article because of a conflict of interest in its writing should not, in itself, be a reason for fail; such conflict should just make the reviewer extra careful.

From the pragmatic side of the things, it is not really a good idea to punish openness and honesty, and that's exactly what we'd be doing if we'd be excluding self-written articles from the GA process. It would lead people to hide their conflicts of interest -- because this would be the rational thing to do --, and this would be a bigger problem. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we might cause people to hide their COIs, but it seems to me that the truly rational thing to do is not write about oneself in articles! I thought this was a given on Wikipedia. I don't see any rules or guidelines prohibiting this sort of thing, but the COI page does mention that user subpages are the best place for autobiographies. While I suppose the two aren't inherently linked, I can't imagine how a person could add to a page on him/herself without creating COI or other significant problems which will prevent GA status.

Besides, as the Onion article posted above demonstrates, I think it's just sad/silly for a person to pad an article about him/herself. A person's legacy is decided by others, right? – Scartol · Talk 14:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link you were perhaps looking for Scartol (that very strongly discourages, but does not blankly forbid, autobiographies) is WP:AUTO. The bottom line is, it's allowable if the content has been vetted by the community in a very clear cut way. Obviously a case such as this one, where the content was in reality exclusively edited by the subject without significant outside involvement along the way, is a violation of that prohibition. VanTucky ^Talk 19:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Yeah, that's precisely what I was looking for. Thanks, VT. Next time I should try typing in WP:NAMEOFTHINGI'MLOOKINGFOR. – Scartol · Talk 22:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that autobiographies are more than likely problematic for an encyclopedia the majority of the time. To be broad, there must be a criticism section, usually. And I doubt most people would write their own accurate (according to reliable sources) criticism section. LaraLove 03:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist.

   Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[1]

——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but there is a difference between contributing to an article of a subject you are invested in and writing an article on yourself, by yourself (for the most part, if not entirely). Personally, I don't think there's any problem at all with editors working on articles for which they have a vested interest as long as they follow policy. Michael Vick could edit his own article and that would be fine, in my opinion, as long as he wasn't removing sourced criticism, information on his legal issues, etc. or adding unsourced information that he knows to be true. That's my view of it. LaraLove 03:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Minor things like copyediting are acceptable for GA reviewers, and almost expected, for many articles. Even finding a few citations yourself for uncited material is fine. What you want to be careful of, is reviewing an article and then adding complete sections of information before passing it yourself. Dr. Cash 00:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Using sources which require log-in to access to archives are fine, just as it's fine to use literary sources like books (more people probably have access to the news archive than many books). An article I wrote passed FAC with about 50% of sources which are now-archived news reports. Daniel 05:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've made a few more changes, mostly cosmetic. Those interested are invited to check out the /guidelines subpage. Geometry guy 23:24, 30 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 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.cashman
2. Canadian Paul
3. VanTucky
4. Carre
5. Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Epbr123 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Good work everyone! VanTucky ^Talk 00:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(self-nom) I propose a streamlining of the GA system. The area for good article nominations shall be broken up into seven main sections:

EDIT: I must of been on something today :/ ? Kmarinas86 03:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

===Unreviewed===

===Stage 1: Acceptable images===

===Stage 2: Broad in coverage===

===Stage 3: Verifiable===

===Stage 4: Neutral===

===Stage 5: Good writing and style===

===Stage 6: Stable===

All GA nominations are introduced into the backlog section. When the article merits movement onto the next stage, it should be moved to the next stage. Before the article is approved of GA status, it is unnecessary to categorize the article. Categorizing the articles before hand discourages people from reviewing articles they have little experience in. With this new system, one may only have to address issues topic familiarity in stages 2, 3, and 4. Any articles that are in 1 and 5 may be reviewed by those who know little about the subject. In this way, each reviewer can make his or her contribution to an article's assessment without being expected to review every aspect of that article. Because categorization would be done after the article has passed, the nominations within each section should be listed in alphabetical order. If a reviewer thinks that some article does not meet a certain criterion, the listing should be placed in a stage prior to that criterion. In this way, we can see how articles stand with respect to the GA criteria.Kmarinas86 21:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another benefit of this system is that it encourages people to send their work only when they are sure they can make it through all stages. I will now explain the reasoning behind the ordering of stages outlined above.

Image criteria < Broad Coverage

The image criteria is not dependent on the topic's coverage.

Image criteria < Verifiability

The image criteria is not dependent on the references and in-line citations, although image captions may use them.

Image criteria < Neutrality

If an image is non-neutral, the article would not have reached the stage of neutrality.

Image criteria < Writing and style

If an image caption or description is poor, the article would not have reached the stage of good writing and style.

Image criteria < Stability

Adherence to image criteria is not dependent on the article's stability.

Broad Coverage < Verifiability

Many articles are broad in coverage but have sections which are missing inline citations.

Broad Coverage < Neutrality

If the article ignores significant subtopics, such as reception or criticism, then the article probably violates NPOV.

Broad Coverage < Writing and style

Without broad coverage of the topic, it becomes less certain that efforts to improve the writing will be fruitful. Writing and style is improved if the subject is described with more depth.

Broad Coverage < Stability

If the article is incomplete, it will likely lose stability as the gap is being filled.

Verifiability < Neutrality

Without verification from reliable sources, non-neutral assertions are more likely to appear. Verification by reliable sources increases the chances of neutrality.

Verifiability < Writing and style

Verifiability is part of the Manual of Style (WP:MOS).

Verifiability < Stability

An article that is already cited properly will have greater chances of being stable during assessment.

Neutrality < Writing and style

The article's neutrality has a profound effect on the articles prose. Articles that violate NPOV are likely to have many style issues in writing.

Neutrality < Stability

If the article is non-neutral in tone, it is likely to be unstable as a result of attempts to make the article more neutral.

Writing and style < Stability

If the article's writing and style is being copyedited, for better or worse, then the stability of the article is at risk.

All the best, Kmarinas86 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a streamlining, it's a vast slowing down of the system. Having to be checked for each criteria one at a time is an absurd idea, and backlogs are for the oldest unreviewed articles, not the newest. The way to get the system streamlined is for there to be more active reviewers. VanTucky ^Talk 22:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Multiple criteria can be checked at once, depending on the reviewer. All the Good Article criteria have to be checked for. This system reduces the chances that criteria are skipped by reviewers that lack skill. Those who are not expert reviewers may reduce their roles to stages where they are best at. Some people are not advanced at checking for prose, while others are great at it. I have stopped giving reviews because of my weakness in developing good prose. I have had to go through the GA process five times or more just to get one article passed. With this system I proposed, I can reduce the number of attempts in the future, since I will be better guided.Kmarinas86 22:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The present problem is not low-quality reviews or a high rate of reassessments. It is a large backlog. Not even FA nominations go through criteria in this fashion, and GA is intentionally much more informal a process. If a reviewer is not confident on a certain issue, there is currently a very easy process by which they can request help from other reviewers. I think the fact that it is seldom used is a good indicator of the general confidence of reviewers. Slowing down the review process for quality control is the last thing we want to do right now. VanTucky ^Talk 22:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with VanTucky. This would not streamline the process anyway, it makes it more confusing, filled with instruction creep, and less likely to be used by anyone. If I came here and saw this kind of system I would immediately determine that the process isn't worth my time and effort. IvoShandor 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with both of you. I look at the current system and decided it wasn't worth my time and effort in reviewing. I don't expect myself to check for all GA criteria, especially the writing and manual of style bits. But if such a system were there I would certainly return. Instruction creep is problem whether this idea is accepted or not. It will not get worse after a plan like this is implemented. In fact, categorizing the article in the nominations page appears to be the result of instruction creep. Why categorize the article according to Wikipedia:Good Articles if it is not going to pass GA? There are too many sections in the nominations page and it complicates the whole process. Please reduce the number of sections ASAP.Kmarinas86 22:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The process of finding a reviewer is very difficult. It takes months just for a reviewer to come, and even then he or she may not check for all of the criteria and decide to pass it. There is no reason for reviewers to waste time in contacting other reviewers. If it passes already to stage four, then someone who only cares about the last three stages can help. Someone might be out of town, claiming that his review will come within one week, but then he forgets about it, and then suddenly other reviewers take responsibily, but then after feedback comes too late, and then it will have to be resubmitted again without a prior on hold period.Kmarinas86

• Finding reviewers doesn't hardly ever take months. Even at the worst stages of the current backlog, a single month was the absolute maximum. Honestly, you're completely exagerrating the problems with GA. Wikipedia, being a completely volunteer process, will always have the problems you're speaking of with the "out of town" commentary. Generally other members of the project are very good about picking up on reviews that have been dropped. Again, quality is not the problem right now, it's volume and speed. VanTucky ^Talk 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a reviewer! The problem here is that, you wouldn't have any articles to review if this were implemented. I for one, and I suspect others, am not willing to jump through these kind of hoops so an article I have worked on can be declared good by someone who probably knows nothing about the topic. IvoShandor 22:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely. During one of the first backlog elimination drives, I participated in reviewing several articles. But did not want to declare all of them good myself, since I considered myself inexperienced. However, I was sure I could look for the articles' standings on image criteria, broad coverage, verifiability, and neutrality. But I did not consider myself to be proficient in prose or in MOS.Kmarinas86 22:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Finding reviewers doesn't hardly ever take months. Even at the worst stages of the current backlog, a single month was the absolute maximum." Not even true. What about Polish October, 2007 Little League World Series, The Fabulous Kangaroos, 2005 USC Trojans football team, Green Wing Special, and Jack F. Matlock, Jr.?Kmarinas86 22:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, not sure if you're familiar with the stats of GA, but a few articles out of the hundreds that pass through here is still hardly ever. Anyway, that's really a side debate. Creating more bureaucracy is not desirable. With your addition, GA review would proceed at a snail's pace, and we simply cannot afford to let that happen right now. VanTucky ^Talk 22:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I still disagree. It matters that the criteria are properly checked for before they become good articles. Too many articles have been delisted after passing its nomination. While the proposal may seem to be slow, in the long run, it means that the good articles are more likely to remain as good articles. Think about the steps:

1. A nominator places their nomination in the Unreviewed section.
2. Five minutes later, a newbie observes the correct image use, so it goes to the section label Acceptable images.
3. The next day, someone checks the broadness of ten articles within Acceptable images, the ten articles now move to Broad coverage section.
4. The following day, an expert on a topic checks for the verifiability and neutrality of articles in the Broad coverage section. Some of the articles make it on to the Verifiable section while others make it to the Neutral section.
5. In one day, someone proficient in English reviews the prose of all the articles in the Neutral section, and puts half of them in the Good writing and style section. And now that they are already stable, these articles can pass.

Kmarinas86 23:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You prove my very point. This recreation of the review process would require a long time, rather than help end our backlog. Quality control is perfectly reasonable as is, and necessitating more time is just not going to happen. VanTucky ^Talk 23:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is more efficient if people check for a single criteria in many articles at once than to check for all criteria in a single article. That's why I have the impervious conviction that my way is faster.Kmarinas86 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. A system which is ideally described as taking more than a week to pass a good article is not fast. It's exceedingly slow. It may take some for reviews to occur presently, but once a review happens it is way faster than that mess. Besides, making a review start with images and such precludes the necessary quick-fail function that so speeds up our process. VanTucky ^Talk 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was giving a conservative estimate of one week. But as you know, reviewers come and go during the day, and it often takes longer than a week to make the first response. The way this is set up right now with categories causes potential reviewers to help only if the subject catches their eye. But with the proposed system, it is possible for one to check 30 articles for adherence to image standards and broadness of coverage in 1 hour—without their lack of interest in the subject getting in the way. That completes stage one and two, and there are only 6 stages, the last one being really short!Kmarinas86 23:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The quick-fail procedure stays.Kmarinas86 23:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I feel the need to mention my thoughts. I just started reviewing GA noms a few weeks ago. I have done about 6-7 so far and have only passed one of them (after I put it on hold). The one I passed was in an area I have no expertise or much interest in (fictional television characters). I reviewed the nomination because it was in the top 5 that needed to be reviewed and (to be quite honest) I wanted my article's nomination to proceed more quickly. But what I realized is that it's quite easy to review articles so long as you take a critical eye to the criteria. After a few of my own reviews I started looking at other people's reviews and noticed one that passed that shouldn't have. I nominated it for reassessment and within a week it was delisted. I think everyone here is bringing up a few points that need to be addressed:

1. We need more people to review GA nominations
2. There are a high number of articles needing to be reassessed
3. We want to make sure inexperienced reviewers can succeed at reviewing GA nominations

So, I think - rather than Kmarinas86's restructuring - we should change a few small things. To address the first issue, we need to both make the process easy and give it dignity. Many of the people over at FA think our purpose is useless (and they want to recruit us to review FA nominations). So I think we should make a quick list of things newcomers can do to help. They could look at a few recent reviews and I think that would help. Also, I think we should require all users that submit a GA nom to review at least one article before theirs is considered. I'm not sure if this is plausible, but maybe we can have a few notes at the top like "Most GA nominations fail" (if that's true, which I believe it is) and "Want to have your nomination reviewed quicker? Then review other articles and yours will be moved up". But we want to make sure that those that nominate don't give horrible reviews.

In addressing the second point, one thing we can do is make a fast-track for articles that clearly shouldn't have passed GA. The article I nominated for reassessment was unanimously agreed upon within hours, but we had to wait 7 days before it was officially delisted. Also, I think the list for newcomers might help - checking recent reviews gives them a good idea of how to proceed. The problem is that people don't want to read all the policies that they should know in order to review a GA nom. So maybe we could give a sample nomination that is good. This would also help addressing the third point. We don't need to require all newcomers to review these samples or look at recent reviews, but I know that if I wanted my article to be reviewed faster I'd look at a sample and start reviewing. Just some thoughts. -- Noetic Sage 23:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem is that people don't want to read all the policies that they should know in order to review a GA nom." That's why new reviewers should be given a method by which they can do a partial review of the article which will be recognized by other reviewers, so that expert reviewers do not have to always have the look for image acceptability or coverage of the topic. In this way, they can check for verifiability, neutrality, and prose, which I'm sure may be more interesting task for some of them.Kmarinas86 23:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure if this is plausible, but maybe we can have a few notes at the top like "Most GA nominations fail" (if that's true, which I believe it is) and "Want to have your nomination reviewed quicker? Then review other articles and yours will be moved up". But we want to make sure that those that nominate don't give horrible reviews." The problem is that this is instruction creep. The nominator would be suggested to review other articles. But he or she may not want to do that. Also, it make be a sort of false promise if in fact the review process does not happen quicker for that person. It sort of the "pick me" bias that doesn't really speed up the reviewing.Kmarinas86 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This idea is about as bad as a "jump to conclusions mat"! Seriously, it won't help speed up the process, and make things far more confusing than they have to be. Plus, it would eliminate one of the best features of WP:GAN, IMHO -- the listing of GA nominees by category. I wish FAC & PR would go with this setup, because it makes things a lot easier if I can jump right to a category that I'm familiar with and see what articles need to be reviewed there, without having to pick them out of a list of 50+ nominees. If this ladder thingy was implemented, it would either eliminate the category view altogether, or make it much more difficult to view both the ladder and the category listings of articles. So, I have to strongly oppose this idea.

On another note, it's worth pointing out that apparently FAC is also having some problems with a general lack of reviewers, and I needn't say that PR has been having these issues for quite awhile. So I think the best solution is to focus on just trying to keep the backlog as low as possible, and try to recruit more reviewers. Step 1 should be continuing on with the WGA sweeps, and step 2 should be holding another backlog elimination drive, hopefully within the next 2-3 months. Drastically altering the entire way GA nominations are handled is not going to help this in any way.

Also, if a reviewer isn't quite comfortable with evaluating ALL of the GA criteria, there's a second opinion option now which can be utilized to seek the opinion of a more experienced reviewer. Just don't forget to tag the article & its listing at WP:GAN with the second opinion tags, so that other reviewers know that you've partially reviewed the article. And it would help if you'd also make as many comments on the article yourself as you can, so that the other reviewer can double-check your evaluation of some criteria, and review the rest more easily. Dr. Cash 00:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Experienced reviewers exist, but they too sometimes feel that they cannot review the article. If they do not know the subject matter very well, why should they be forced to check for factual accuracy? If different parts of the reviewing process were undertaken by different people, and the progress simply marked by what criteria they have proven themselves in, then a lot or virtually all of inexperienced reviewers could jump on the boat and participate. This is not hard at all.Kmarinas86 00:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. A nominator places their nomination in the Unreviewed section.
2. Five minutes later, a newbie observes the correct image use, so it goes to the section label Acceptable images.
3. The next day, someone checks the broadness of ten articles within Acceptable images, the ten articles now move to Broad coverage section.
4. The following day, an expert on a topic checks for the verifiability and neutrality of articles in the Broad coverage section. Some of the articles make it on to the Verifiable section while others make it to the Neutral section.
5. In one day, someone proficient in English reviews the prose of all the articles in the Neutral section, and puts half of them in the Good writing and style section. And now that they are already stable, these articles can pass.

Kmarinas86 23:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this would be better handled by some kind of checkbox system rather than moving the articles from section to section. Wrad 00:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea! It should be a standard template on article talk pages (if that were possible). If the progress has to be done in order, a radio button might do.Kmarinas86 00:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, the checkbox system would be cluttered, especially if you put it on the good article nominations page. I would prefer that articles which have attained same level of progress would be in the same category. While I appreciate the categories found on Wikipedia:Good articles, I find them to be annoying on the nominations page. There are so many categories and distinctions that I am forced to discriminate against those articles which don't appeal to me, even though I could help with part of the reviewing process, which is impossible under the current system. I can't imagine why those who are an expert in a topic even need the categories displayed on the talk page. Just as there is LONG tag, one could easily put a custom tag such as Biology or Pets next to their entry. So that way, the cluttertastic categories (and TOC) on the nominations page would be rendered obsolete.Kmarinas86 00:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem, only a backlog, and this will only slow down reviews. The reason for the backlog is that we are getting more nominations than usual which isn't a bad thing as it means that more articles are becoming "good". T Rex | talk 00:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that I see with having a whole host of different reviewers is that it makes the problems themselves difficult to address. When I do a review, I cover all the areas and the nominator is welcome to contact me at any point to ask me for more help or clarify issues that I have raised, whether or I have put the article on hold or have failed it outright. With multiple reviewers, I can see disagreements arising, where a topic expert disagrees that the subject is covered broadly, there is now a contradiction in reviews – the nominator can't go back and ask the broadness reviewer what to do about the lack of broadness because the past reviewer has already thought that the topic was broad enough. The current reviewer may be able to help, but now the nominator has met with conflicting reviews.

I also disagree with the notion that most GA Nominations should be failed. Out of the 11 articles I have reviewed fully (not counting quickfails), only four of the eleven were failed outright, always because they were missing something clearly too substantial to be solved in seven days (stability, citations and two for broadness of coverage). The other seven were put on hold, four of which have passed as of this writing. Of those four, mayyyybe the first one I did when I wasn't experienced might be a sketchy pass, but I would defend my other three passes and three holds firmly. I'm more worried that good articles are being failed instead of held, to be honest, because the reviewer assumes that the person can't make the necessary changes within seven days. I've nominated three articles for GA thusfar, none of which deserved to pass right off the bat, but also none of which I felt deserved to be denied a hold, at least given my understanding of the criteria. Hard to tell, since only one has been reviewed thusfar (and passed after a quick hold), but as a submitter of an article, I expect that whoever reviews my article will give me useful insights, see the work that I have done so far, and give me the opportunity to improve based on suggestions. Out of the four that I have failed, one is already back as a GA nominee based on my suggestions, which speaks to the average author's commitment in getting their article promoted and thus their willingness to accomplish the addressing of comments by a GA reviewer in a timely manner.

If we want to clear up backlog, I actually do like the idea of having someone scan through the list and do quickfails once per week, but I ask why someone can't just do this of their own free will? I'd do it, but I'm hesitant in quick failing for various reasons that I won't get into. Also, other things can be done, like at least two nominees have notes asking that the article not be reviewed for several weeks. Shouldn't we just consider these nominations withdrawn? (Especially since, for at least one, it was added by someone who is blanket nominating all "high profile" articles that they can find, some of which have already passed the A Class review). Cheers, CP 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article has a note on it asking that it not be reviewed for a few weeks, it should be removed from the list and then renominated once the editors feel that it is ready for nomination. Dr. Cash 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that the Wikipedia Signpost start listing GA stats in their Features and admins section. VanTucky ^Talk 22:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a simple idea: What if we had a weekly "Quick-fail" screening? One day a week where the focus is on weeding out all the obvious fails from the nomination pool? I think that would help a lot. It would give us a better idea of the work we have in front of us. Another idea: I have noticed that some subjects are covered by more reviewers than others. The literature section is rarely backlogged, for example. I have put several articles through it in a matter of days. Sports, Video games, and television sections are another story though. Maybe just a friendly invitation to related wikiproject would help. I enjoy having people interested in literature review my literature articles, and this would promote the same for these subjects. Wrad 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem then lies on who is doing the quick-fail screening and where to put the articles that pass it. Without guidance, a single article may survive the quick-fail process innumerable times.Kmarinas86 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, keep the GAN page the same as it is. Fail the ones that don't pass, keep the ones that do. Anyone can review. Same as it's always been, just a more focused effort. Wrad 00:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any problem with what to do about articles that pass this quick-fail screening. I think what Wrad is advocating is that someone or two (preferably the more experienced reviewers), go through the whole list at least once per week and quick-fail articles that obviously don't meet the criteria. Articles that pass this will just be kept on the page, awaiting the full review. Dr. Cash 00:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's got the idea right. Basically it would just reduce clutter. Wrad 00:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess having an article go under multiple quick-fail tests (one each week) would be useful in the case that the article suddenly went bad, but you would waste a lot of time if a good majority of articles were not quick fail. Also, if multiple people participate in this, you will have to mark which ones already passed quick fail. Otherwise, many times more work would be done than what is necessary. People would be encouraged to just stick to the full review, one article at a time.Kmarinas86 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't have to mark it, you would just have to look at the nomination date to be sure it was less than a week old. No multiple tests at all. Also, editors would confine themselves to certain categories to avoid overlap. Wrad 00:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good.Kmarinas86 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty simple idea, but I for one would breathe a sigh of relief knowing that there weren't any real problematic articles in the list. Wrad 00:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]