Yamanbaiia (talk | contribs) m →Review please: ...but i do not master the copy editing arts |
→Review please: From my experiences with Tony1... |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
::Thanks, the article is [[Greatest Hits (Lost)]], which has already been [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Greatest Hits (Lost)|peer reviewed]]. At its [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greatest Hits (Lost)|FAC]], a [[User:Tony1|user]] has said that "nearly every sentence needs fiddling… find someone to run through the whole article." I have listed it for review by the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors|League of Copyeditors]], but it will be weeks before someone gets to it. –'''[[User:thedemonhog|<span style="color:#B22222">thedemonhog</span>]]''' <small>''[[User talk:thedemonhog|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/thedemonhog|<span style="color:green">edits</span>]]''</small> 00:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC) |
::Thanks, the article is [[Greatest Hits (Lost)]], which has already been [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Greatest Hits (Lost)|peer reviewed]]. At its [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greatest Hits (Lost)|FAC]], a [[User:Tony1|user]] has said that "nearly every sentence needs fiddling… find someone to run through the whole article." I have listed it for review by the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors|League of Copyeditors]], but it will be weeks before someone gets to it. –'''[[User:thedemonhog|<span style="color:#B22222">thedemonhog</span>]]''' <small>''[[User talk:thedemonhog|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/thedemonhog|<span style="color:green">edits</span>]]''</small> 00:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::I know nothing about Lost so i had some trouble following the -Plot- section, apart from that, i don't think it's a terrible article. I have a MOS doubt though, i'm not sure this:"''[[April 9]], [[2007]] to [[April 12]]''", is OK, wikilinking speaking.[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]]<font color="#203"></font><sup>([[User talk:Yamanbaiia|free hugs!]])</sup> 01:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC) |
:::I know nothing about Lost so i had some trouble following the -Plot- section, apart from that, i don't think it's a terrible article. I have a MOS doubt though, i'm not sure this:"''[[April 9]], [[2007]] to [[April 12]]''", is OK, wikilinking speaking.[[User:Yamanbaiia|Yamanbaiia]]<font color="#203"></font><sup>([[User talk:Yamanbaiia|free hugs!]])</sup> 01:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::From my experiences with Tony1 (at FAC) he'll generally provide some examples of what's bad about the article, if you ask. Then you just have to check for re-occurances of said issue. [[Portal:Music of Australia|—]] [[User talk:Dihydrogen Monoxide|<b style="color:#12A434">Dihydrogen Monoxide</b>]] 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:00, 31 December 2007
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Re: Sports and recreation section
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)
- 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)
- Good point - I'm going to fail those too, they really are week on broadness. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Good point - I'm going to fail those too, they really are week on broadness. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- "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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Exactly, the information I requested couldn't really be added in seven days. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Quick-fail
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "(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)
GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 22/12/2007
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)
- ...for the third consecutive week. Ouch... — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 23:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- No surprise - congratulations! EyeSereneTALK 21:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
A-Class nominations
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)
- Yes. In contrast to good and featured articles, A-Class is matter for individual WikiProjects. From the GA perspective, it makes no difference whether a WikiProject regards an article as A-Class or not: all that matters is whether the article meets the good article criteria. Although FAC might be a more logical next step in this case, an editor has requested a GA review first: such a review should be a good preparation for FAC. Geometry guy 17:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- A-class is a totally different classification altogether, and should be treated separately. Personally, I don't really like it all that much because it's seen as being one level "above" GA, yet for all the so-called A-class articles that I've seen, I almost never see a very detailed A-class review (unlike WP:FAC, and a lot of WP:GANs, which get much more detailed reviews). It seems like the various wikiprojects just slap the A tag out there with no real wikipedia-wide standard over their quality (every wikiproject has different standards).
- When I review an article for WP:GA, I review it against the GA criteria alone, irregardless of whether it's A-class or not. If it passes, and it's A-class, I promote to GA and keep it as A-class as well. But if it fails GA, I have no qualms about demoting it's ranking back down to B-class, especially if there is no evidence of a proper A-class review anywhere in the talk history. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the context of this specific article (i.e. assessment under WikiProject Biography), a GA review might be somewhat “regressive”. Not all projects require a review for A-Class, as this one did; in those instances, the letter grades seem more so geared towards addressing the meaningfulness and usefulness of the content and are less concerned with adherence to policy. GA reviews, conversely, care somewhat less about content (only that it must be ‘broad”) and more about compliance with basic content policies. Simply put, in this case, the usefulness of a GA review will depend on the thoroughness of the A-review.
- The article is certainly still eligible for a GA review as far as the A-class is concerned. Indeed, a GA review would never hurt (for instance, several image captions end in full stops, despite not being full sentences, which is a current problem the GA review would hopefully catch). My understanding, however, is that articles should not be simultaneously nominated for FA and GA, as this is. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe this was a former FAC, so it should be ok. Thanks a lot to everyone for the quick and detailed responses. --Malachirality (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Just Checking
In the course of reviewing Elizabeth Cady Stanton, I made a series of minor edits that involved punctuation, ref placement, and minor reorganization of words and/or sentences. I just wanted to make sure that, despite making (admittedly insignificant) contributions myself, I can still promote this article to GA w/out it being a COI. Obviously, I'm not going to take any sort of credit as a contributor to the good article, on my userpage, in my mind, or elsewhere. --Malachirality (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Based on these edits I might consider abstaining - fixing typos and wikilinks is one thing, once you start copyediting you're sort of in too deep. It's up to you, it's not a clear cut COI yet, and considering the backlog you might wanna just wing it (it looks like a GA anyway), but in future cases I wouldn't go into copyediting. In this case I suggest you pass it, and we AGF on your behalf :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, would it be considered COI to review an article written by a user who has previously reviewed and passed one of your articles and is about a subject whose Wikiproject you are a member of? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion, only if you've directly edited the article, or if the user nominating it is influencing your judgment in passing/failing/on-holding. However, with Where We Land I requested a 2nd opinion, see the talk page for details. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 22:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict, responding to H2O) *Oh oops, sorry about that. I do some ce stuff for the LOCE too, so I guess instinct just kicked in :-/. Not to make excuses, but the article was already pretty good as it was that I didn't consider the changes I made important enough to bring in the contributors (who don't seem to be responding). Anyways, I won't do that again. I think I'll leave the nom up for a day or two and see if other users object to the changes and promotion as COI (please comment below). Alternatively, I could just list for a 2nd opinion (but again, considering backlog). Thanks for the clarification. --Malachirality (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with the comment "once you start copyediting you're sort of in too deep". There is no conflict of interest here, and reviewers are encouraged to fix problems that they find with articles under review. This includes quite extensive copyediting, and even minor content fixes. The goal is to ensure that only articles which meet the criteria are listed. If reviewers can help the article achieve this, so much the better for Wikipedia. I believe in this case you are being thoroughly objective, and encourage you to promote the article if you believe it meets the criteria. If anyone disagrees, they can propose delisting the article or challenge your decision at WP:GAR. That is a key advantage of the one reviewer system. Geometry guy 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Geometry guy, though I do have one word of warning. I've been sniped at more than once for trying to help copyedit, so be prepared that, sadly, some people don't really appreciate it. I try to be modest, especially if I've never reviewed for them before. If I know that they're pleasant to work with, however, then I go ahead and copy edit to improve the article. Cheers, CP 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with the comment "once you start copyediting you're sort of in too deep". There is no conflict of interest here, and reviewers are encouraged to fix problems that they find with articles under review. This includes quite extensive copyediting, and even minor content fixes. The goal is to ensure that only articles which meet the criteria are listed. If reviewers can help the article achieve this, so much the better for Wikipedia. I believe in this case you are being thoroughly objective, and encourage you to promote the article if you believe it meets the criteria. If anyone disagrees, they can propose delisting the article or challenge your decision at WP:GAR. That is a key advantage of the one reviewer system. Geometry guy 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, would it be considered COI to review an article written by a user who has previously reviewed and passed one of your articles and is about a subject whose Wikiproject you are a member of? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I believe you're saying you went to review an article, saw that it was nearly a pass, fixed a few minor issues, and want to know if you should then pass it or leave it for another reviewer to look at?
- My answer would be (in this specific scenario only) pass it there and then. Leave your usual review, and mention that you fixed a few minor issues (what they were and why). What you're doing is helpful to Wikipedia, and is far more editor friendly than placing an article on hold because, say, there's a badly formatted reference or a comma in the wrong place. --kingboyk (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've listed it as a GA; quick question--do I have to update the total GA article count (currently in the 3000s) manually?
- No, this is regularly updated by a bot. Geometry guy 19:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Review please
Hello, is anyone interested in looking over an article, but not for GA? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are other more conventional places where to ask for this, like the irc channel and the peer review thingy, but whatever...drop it like it's hot here, I'll take a look. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, the article is Greatest Hits (Lost), which has already been peer reviewed. At its FAC, a user has said that "nearly every sentence needs fiddling… find someone to run through the whole article." I have listed it for review by the League of Copyeditors, but it will be weeks before someone gets to it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know nothing about Lost so i had some trouble following the -Plot- section, apart from that, i don't think it's a terrible article. I have a MOS doubt though, i'm not sure this:"April 9, 2007 to April 12", is OK, wikilinking speaking.Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 01:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- From my experiences with Tony1 (at FAC) he'll generally provide some examples of what's bad about the article, if you ask. Then you just have to check for re-occurances of said issue. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know nothing about Lost so i had some trouble following the -Plot- section, apart from that, i don't think it's a terrible article. I have a MOS doubt though, i'm not sure this:"April 9, 2007 to April 12", is OK, wikilinking speaking.Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 01:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, the article is Greatest Hits (Lost), which has already been peer reviewed. At its FAC, a user has said that "nearly every sentence needs fiddling… find someone to run through the whole article." I have listed it for review by the League of Copyeditors, but it will be weeks before someone gets to it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)