Archives

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

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

At the WP:GAC#Sports and recreation section, there are currently 42 up for GA, and this is the only section that has this many articles. Wouldn't it make sense to split this up into two or three smaller sections?--十八 02:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to appear pushy but I'm surprised that articles such as Dennis Franklin and Bob Timberlake haven't been failed yet, both of these are very small articles that don't seem to be broad when covering their scope, there are a few other simmilar cases there but I thought those were probably the most obvious ones, we should really try to avoid letting one user nominate twenty-one articles at once, that puts on some serious strain on the nomination process and creates a automatic backlog. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I'm going to fail those too, they really are week on broadness. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel either of your reviews was very high quality. See comments on similar efforts at [1].--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the problem here is that you concentrated in nominating several articles that are unsuitable for GA without analizing the content properly, complaining that the reviews were "half-arsed" won't change the fact that several of these articles simply lack the content nessesary to go beyond "B-class", most of the articles you nominated were biographies wich if they don't cover enough aspects of the subject's life and/or what makes said person notable fall short of GA standards, most of the articles that were nominated on November 30 were beyond "On-Hold" repair, most of them would have a hard time passing as good B-class articles, however there is always WP:GAR if you stand by this opinion after analizing the content of these biographies. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Dihydrogen Monoxide, the reviews were "quick fails" so they weren't intended to be high quality. Although, it does raise the question of whether quick fails should be discouraged. Epbr123 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, I'm not particularly fond of "quick fail" - I did try to put in a decent review in for both of them - the prose was fine and there wasn't much to talk about there (except jargon), so I really didn't have much to "complain" about. That doesn't lower the value of my review (at least, I would hope it doesn't); rather it says something about the quality of the article (specifically in relation to the broadness criteria). And I have stated on TonyTheTiger's talk page that I now specifically refuse to review any of his GA nominations in future, as I'm not particularly fond of my review being called "half-arsed" or whatever else he said about it. Sure, I didn't spend an hour on it as I have on some, but I tried to make it as useful as I could considering there was so little to talk about. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger just doesn't like that his articles are being failed. I gave him a longer review on Greg Skrepenak‎ and he still complained. When an article that is a biography doesn't even contain a date of birth or much about their personal or non-career life, then it's not very comprehensive, is it? I read through the article and left some comments about how the article could be improved. It could have been a little longer, but I don't think there is anything overly wrong with it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People ask why I don't do more GA reviews. As you can see by the three I've done, I don't do quick reviews. If I do a review, I do it for the purpose of helping another person achieve a GA where I think I can make the difference by reviewing it. I have only done three and intended to do a fourth Walter O'Malley, but it was failed before I could do so and I thus helped renominate it. I very much appreciate it when a reviewer takes the time to say this is not a GA, but it could be with a specific set of changes. I am disappointed when an article is close enough that a decent reviewer could direct me toward a GA with a hold and I get needlessly failed. It is detrimental to the project when this happens because the next reviewer has to start from scratch after a renomination. In this case, we had a single editor with 29 nominations and a series of talk page threads all over the place saying what should we do that resulted in 8 consecutive fails. I have taken several failed noms well in the past. This is a situation where there is a concerted effort to do something detrimental to the project to try to humble some cocky editor who nominated 29 articles at one time. It is not good for the project to quickfail articles that are close. Since User:Dihydrogen Monoxide is one of the best reviewers on WP and I am one of the most successful nominators on WP it would be very likely if he put an effort into writing a constructive GA on hold and I gave a good effort at responding to it, the project would have an additional good article such activity should be encouraged. That is what my point is. In terms of international importance, both Bob Timberlake and Dennis Franklin are low importance. They both might be low importance to any project they are associated with. However, WP:GAC does not consider an article's importance. I don't have access to common sources to do much more to expand upon the breadth of the article. I am much more disappointed in the reviews of User:Scorpion0422‎ than those of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Of the 8 fails, I will concede about half of them. However, I am considering renominating 4 or 5 of them at WP:GAR. I challenge all GA reviewers to look at Greg Skrepenak and say whether they are as skilled enough reviewer to have guided it to GA status with a constructive hold. I think the majority of reviewers could. That is my point here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you consider me a skilled reviewer. I looked at the reviewed version of Greg Skrepenak and could not see a justification for placing it on hold, short of "I've spent the last week finding sources, here they all are. Oh yes, and here's the prose that you can write based on these sources. Copy paste this into the article and I'll put it on hold." It's the same with the two I reviewed - I could critique what was there more than I did, and I don't want to waste my time finding sources that you couldn't be bothered finding (or, if you did search, they aren't there, so it's even more of a waste). Sorry, that isn't what GAC is about, and someone with as many GAs as you would surely understand that. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 04:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it is is much better than it was. this is the version I reviewed. The fact that you followed several of my suggestions and expanded it significantly indicates that my review was somewhat valuable and it should just be renominated. It doesn't really belong at GA review. The purpose of that is when you thinkt the version that was reviewed deserved to pass. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m apt to believe that criticizing the efforts of volunteer reviewers is more “detrimental to the project” than not holding a nomination. The GA process is not here to develop articles into Good Articles; it is here to evaluate articles already “believe[d] … to be good according Good article criteria” and, if necessary, provide constructive criticism. If you believe a review to not be sufficiently thorough, politely asking the reviewer to elaborate or bringing the article to WP:GAR are appropriate actions. Accusations of a collaborative effort to fail articles to spite a nominator fail to assume good faith and undermine the GA process, which is “built upon the good faith efforts and honor of reviewers”. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 05:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This diff comparing the version Scorpion reviewed to the current version is evidence that his GA review did exactly what it was supposed to do. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is that the diff you are pointing to could have easily resulted from a 'Hey this article covers the guys whole life, but does not really elaborate on the NFL portion of his career, which is afterall in large part responsible for making his life notable.' A GA on hold could have gotten this result. Then the original reviewer could go back and look at the two paragraphs added and say. Yeah this is sort of what I was looking for. I am just saying that what you were asking for was some detail that could have been handled by a "If you can do this it would be a good article", which is what a hold is for. Now a new reviewer has to review the whole article, which is a resource drain on the project. There is no need to take special action and have this section and or Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_8#Number_of_concurrent_nominations. Just look at the articles and see if you can help bring them to GA. I do think most people who would look at the original version would have felt they could have brought it to GA with a constructive hold. Now, that I have done several sports articles I am finding that certain cities have extensive online search archives for the major daily newspaper going back 20 or 25 years. So far I have found that the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Houston Chronicle are all available. A reviewer could simply say this guy played a large part of his career in the Bay area and you should research their archives to expand his NFL career section. That would be sufficient for a GA hold.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Quoted from [[Template:GANotice]) "It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed." - I hardly see how an article lacking a significant amount of content is "basically a good article" and I don't see how the content it lacks is only a "minor change". Perhaps we have different definitions of "on hold". — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"On hold" is for changes that you think the editor can make within seven days without too much trouble, IMO. Adding two paragraphs, which was more than was necessary on Greg Skrepenak could easily be done in seven days. In the case of the two articles you failed I think Dennis Franklin may be more complete than you think, because the information you request is not easily accessible by a simple internet search.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the information I requested couldn't really be added in seven days. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 15th December 2007. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Dihydrogen Monoxide
2. Canadian Paul
3. Elcobbola
4. M3tal H3ad
5. Jackyd101.
Epbr123 (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to DHMO, but I think his latest GAN action, "Reese Witherspoon on hold", may be wishful thinking ;-) Geometry guy 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved again, almost single handedly cleared the backlog of 30+ music articles. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe Gg - you can expect a long review for a long article. We'll see what happens. And thanks again MH :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance, but I don't know about this. Can someone clear some things up for me:

1. What is the Good Article Medal of Merit?
2. Who awards said medal?
3. What is the criteria?
4. Who came up with this ide?

Sorry for the hassle, but I just want to be more knowledge-ful, wikipedia-wise. Cheers, Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the GA project's way of recognising Dr Cash, CP and Dihydrogen Monoxide editors who contribute significantly to the project by reviewing lots articles from the WP:GAN page. The criteria are given by Epbr123 in the relevant section (above). EyeSerene^TALK 09:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've just gone and quick-failed Principality of Sealand as it cotnains a load of citation needed tags and some of its sources are not reliable. Was I right to take this course of action? It's the first-time I've ever quick-failed an article. Davnel03 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a perfectly reasonable quick fail, myself. I remember this was at FAC not that long ago, and looking at the ArticleHistory template, it has also been through an FAR (delisted) in the past year or so. If the citations haven't been provided through all those processes, it seems unreasonable to hold the nomination in anticipation of them being added soon. There are MOS breaches in there too, here and there, but that's not so important. Carre (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely acceptable. It's arguable how many "citation needed" tags merit a quickfail, but seeing how that "refimprove" tag at the bottom has been there since November, it's a moot point anyways — that tag alone would earn a quick-fail. Cheers, CP 17:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the quick fail in this instance, I think we need a better "quick fail criteria" than "contains a refimprove tag that the editor might've missed because it was at the bottom and he doesn't go and review the article's categories/navboxes regularly" (that doesn't apply to this article, and I'm obviously over exaggerating). I think we should actually take the time and read through the article, see how much referencing is actually needed, rather than just failing because someone else once said the referencing sucks. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 06:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that if you want another person (ie. a GA reviewer) to spend his time reviewing your work in a given set of criteria, then the least you can do is be sure that the article is free of criteria that will quick fail it. An editor should be fully inspecting an article BEFORE submitting it to make sure that, at a reasonable level, the concerns have been addressed. I'm not talking here about a tag that was added after the nomination of course, but if there's one that's been sitting there for a month, I don't see any excuse why it should be there upon submission. People put lots of effort into articles, and I'm willing to reciprocate that effort in a GA review. It's not a case of "someone else said the referencing sucks." We have to assume good faith for the tag. If it was a driveby, remove the tag and explain why on the talk page. If the person who added the tag adds in back, then there's cause for concern. If the person is being unreasonable, there are steps to be taken. There's no deadline for these articles to become Good Articles. If the article truly deserves to be a Good Article, then there should be no trouble removing the tag before submission. If there is trouble, that probably means that there are issues that need to be worked on for the article to be Good. Of course, I'm not talking about pure vandalistic or trolling tags, which can be dealt with rather quick as well. What I basically wanted to say is that if there's a tag, and it's not warranted, then it's very easy to remove and should be done before submitting. I just didn't want that to make it seem like editors should flat out remove tags if they think they shouldn't be there, flying in the face of other legitimate concerns. But in the end, if the nominator can't be bothered to remove a tag that doesn't belong, why should we be bothered to give it a full review? There's 200 more nominations out there that did put the effort in, and I'm more than happy to show it back. Cheers, CP 07:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you in general. My primary issue is with (quoting you) "I'm not talking here about a tag that was added after the nomination of course" - Obviously that doesn't refer to the article in question, but there are articles which are failed in such cases. I also want to re-iterate that it *is* possible to miss the refimprove tag, because it's hidden at the bottom of the article/it's been there forever/you missed it on your watchlist. A bit of extra time from the GA reviewer (not accusing anyone here) would prevent quick fails in this situation. But I'm really not sure what I'm asking for anymore... :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 07:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, well in that case I'd agree. I think it's a subset of my argument about reviewer effort. If the author/nominator has put in all that effort to write a good article, then surely a reviewer can take a few seconds to ensure that the tag was not added after nomination. After all, you have to check the article history to ensure that it meets the stability criterion anyways. We allow for a reviewer to have edited the article after the nomination to still review (to a degree) and it's not unreasonable to allow for a tag or two after the nomination (again, to a degree). I'm not a big fan of all the little caveats that have been added lately, but I wouldn't be opposed to a tiny notice next to that particular QF criteria along the lines of "reviewers should ensure that the tag was not added after the nomination." A tag can still be part of a reason for the fail in these cases, but not a criteria for quickfail (unless, of course, it's a red deletion tag, but that would fail it in stability anyhow). Cheers, CP 07:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 22nd December 2007. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Dihydrogen Monoxide
2. Elcobbola
3. Kane5187
4. Canadian Paul
5. Wassupwestcoast.
Epbr123 (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...for the third consecutive week. Ouch... — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No surprise - congratulations! EyeSerene^TALK 21:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is already A-class, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, can it still be a candidate for and/or pass GAC? I have left a message on the article talk page saying that FA would probably be the logical next step (it has already been to peer review), but should I still review and possibly pass the article for GA? --Malachirality (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]