(←)We discussed something similar recently, and decided that GA was not ready to adopt lists (not that we shouldn't reopen the discussion if necessary). Having said that, I agree that the article isn't really a list, although formatted in places like one, and shouldn't be subject to lower standards. If Matisse wants to bring it to GAR to get a second opinion, I don't see a problem with that; it's as good a place as any to double-check a review. No fault, no blame, no big deal - we can fix it ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, EyeSerene, I totally agree. --Philcha (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding Septimus Heap, sorry, I meant my standards went down in that many of my complaints about th article pertained to a typical prose article and not to one with numerous embedded lists. In promoting it, I was going by the quote above by Malleus: "Articles containing fleshed out, embedded lists like Septimus Heap seem to me to meet the GA criteria." That is why I passed it, as I am not clear on the criteria in this situation. If I was wrong, I am willing to bring it to GAR. However, I would ask someone to help me list the reasons why it fails GA and therefore should go to GAR (other than my inexperience with an article full of embedded lists). If someone would help me list the reasons for GAR, I am willing to list it. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your review is pretty good, but there are definitely a few improvements that could still be made. I think Philcha's comments above could be helpful with that. I hesitate to speak for Malleus, but I get the impression he was making a general comment about listy articles being valid GA candidates, rather than this specific article meeting the criteria as it stood. EyeSerene^talk 15:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking generally, yes. I just glanced quickly at the article to look at the lists. I didn't look closely enough to have an opinion on the review. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Septimus Heap books is that, unlike the Harry Potter books, they really are kids' books - I've read 4, and they certainly don't have the emotional depth of the Harry Potter series. So reviewing an article about the series can be difficult if you are not involved in articles about kids books. I'd start any review process by looking for GAs or FAs about children's books, to form some idea of what should be expected in a such an article, re both content and sources.

However I think there are problems in Septimus Heap:

• The prose is rather immature.
• There's a shortage of objective sources - too many have personal or commercial reasons to be enthusiastic about the books. Google (for "angie sage" review) got me only one lead, Times Online (see below.) I could find nothing relevant on Metacritic for Magyk, Flyte, Physik or Queste. Times Online lists a couple of reviews and an article about plans to make one or more films of the books. It would be worth checking the sites of the other "quality" British papers - Independent, Guardian, Telegraph - to see if they have reviews. I have not tried Google Books or Google Scholar.
• I noticed one important but unsourced statement, "The series received mostly positive appreciation from the critic". There may be others.
• The list of characters is far too long, as I said above.
• The list of locations does nothing for me.
• The obvious comparison is with the Harry Potter series and should be included if at all possible. IIRC one of the Times Online articles quoted Angie Sage as saying the Harry Potter series convinced her there was demand for kids' / young adults' fantasy. After reading 4 of the Septimus Heap books I've seen no sign of the development that's visible in the Harry Potter series, where the tone changes as the main characters grow up. --Philcha (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The one time I nominated an article for GAR, I was accused of not assuming good faith by the article's editor and this GAR was even listed by a couple of editors as a charge in an RFC against me (even though I had done nothing improper and had consulted another GA editor for advice first) and this continues to be pursued as an open charge against me today, so I am very reluctant to become mixed up in a GAR again. Do you suggest I do it, using the reasons you give? Would that be safe for me? What you recommend? Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any doubt about your good faith; you were the one that brought your concerns here in the first place because you wanted to do the best you could for the article. I can appreciate that the author(s) might be a bit put out, and you don't need to look far up this page to realise that we aren't always successful in bringing editors along with us, but we can only try :P As long as you're tactful about and emphasise that GAR is about improving rather than delisting articles, things should be fine. However, if you'd rather step back, I'm sure one of us can make the nomination instead. EyeSerene^talk 18:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying, you want to stay clear of difficult situations: Life's Too Short.

GA doesn't review lists; editors can submit to FLC if they wish. But, there are lists, and there are lists. Sometimes, the distinction is blurred. You asked in the right place first, and community members advised fleshed out, embedded lists could constitute a GA. As EyeSerene said: No fault, no blame, no big deal. If it turns out on closer inspection the page cannot be a GA because of its nature, that's all right. You acted with best endeavors and you did your best. And that's all anyone can ask of you.

Taking it to GAR for a second opinion sounds fine. If it turns out the article doesn't come under the auspices of GA, your review feedback will still have helped further improve the article. That can only be good for Wikipedia.

If anybody, down the line, takes issue with your having taken it to GAR, please feel free to refer them to this comment. They can raise their concern with me, and I'll make sure to give it the attention it deserves. –Whitehorse1 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for someone else to take it to GAR? I am extremely fearful, as my RFC, including a section on my taking an article to GAR just after it was passed by another, is still open, so this one would be even more likely to cause problems, as it was passed by me! (Almost all editors, except the article writer, on that GAR stood up for me, but it did not prevent it being held against me, so referring others to your post here will not help me, I am afraid.) Also, I am not familiar with the requirements of lists. I have never reviewed an article before with so many embedded lists. I should have looked carefully at the article first, before I signed up to review it. I made a very big mistake. I have no confidence in myself regarding passing judgment on this article now. Further, I am not clear what the outcome of all the statements made above are, regarding the standards for the embedded lists. (Many of the prose issues I had with the article do not necessarily apply to lists.) In short, I am confused. I do not know what the standards are regarding this particular article. I have no faith in myself now, so I think it would be a mistake for me to take it to GAR. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked at the talk page if moving the lists to sub-articles would be acceptable - if that happens i would say this is a fair enough GA. If it doesn't happen in a few days, i'll happily do the GAR submission.

On the overall point, You could consider asking at FLC before GAN listy reviews? If GAR fails a list because it is too listy, then it may be possible for it to pass as a FL (assuming all formatting etc is good, this has happened in the past). If FLC fail it because it is too prose-y, then there is a problem - likely that the embedded lists are too trivial and should be cut for a truly good GA. I've asked about this before at WP:Awards, and the consensus seemed to be that the only way to tell is to submit for both and see what reviewers say. The idea to write a guideline got no consensus. I think that if Good List ever occur, then they are best dealt with at FLC - but if they are just lesser quality FLs, then they are not needed, as FL criteria are not much greater than GA.Yobmod (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the GAR nomination per Mattisse's request. The reassessment page is here - I hope Philcha doesn't mind my plagiarism (I did attribute!). Any interested reviewers are welcome to participate ;) EyeSerene^talk 23:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that this article would pass muster as a list. The majority of the article is prose. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm currently having Live & Kicking reviewed by User:MacGyverMagic, who first indicated he would review it on Jan 29. He took three days to start reviewing the page, and each and every time I have responded to a concern, I've had to ping him on his talk page to get him to respond. Now it seems he is ignoring me completely: see the thread. I don't want to have to seem like a pest, but as a reviewer, he should take some responsibility to respond to my replies to his concerns, and not simply ignore me. What he's doing is discourteous and rude, as he's still clearly editing, so it's not as if he's busy IRL. I'd really like to concentrate on another article, but can't until this one is out of the way, and it's off my mind. The fact he is taking unnecessarily ages about it, ignoring me on his talk page, posting points of the review on my talk page instead of the review page, despite me asking him not to, has brought me here to ask for opinions of other reviewers. If he can't be bothered to finish what he started, can someone else please finish the review, so I can move on? Thanks, Majorly talk 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three days is a blink of an eye when your my age :-) Seriously, many reviewers like to read the whole article carefully before leaving any comments, so a pause between offering to review and leaving an initial review is common. The article was put "on hold" on February 1. The nominal time period for a hold is 7 days. Some reviewers prefer to leave nominators to it and return to the review in 7 days; there is nothing discourteous about that. Pinging them repeatedly before that time may not be helpful. I suggest you wait until Sunday. Geometry guy 18:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is now moot as Mgm has passed the review. I'll have to learn to be a little more patient :) Majorly talk 18:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago I posted a request for a 2nd opinion about Talk:Mac OS X/GA2. My concerns are that the article is "insider-oriented" to a degree that makes it uselss to readers who are not already Mac enthusiasts (i.e. coverage is inadequate and off-target), and that this plus heavy reliance on Apple-related sources throws doubt on the article's neutrality. As it stands I would fail the artcile on these grounds, and there would probably be vociferous complaints.

I would much appreciate a 2nd opinion on the issues I've raised above, as I'm aware that this is much more of a judgement call than the typical GA pass / fail. --Philcha (talk) 11:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look, and pitch in, but I don't think I'll do a full review. Gary King (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gary King - I wasn't expecting a full review, just a second opinion on the coverage and neturality issues. --Philcha (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at those particular issues yet, but I brought up a few other issues on the GAN page. I'm using a Mac right now, so the article interests me more than others. Gary King (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor buggers, having to face two GA reviwers! --Philcha (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jutsu (Naruto) - thought I would check before I take another step. The article's editor says it is not. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a list. If it was considered for a featured process, it would be FAC and not FLC. Gary King (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, EyeSerene suggested I ask and you have answered. So thanks! (Although it is still not clear what the difference is.) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a similar question at FLC about Controlled substances in Oregon. I think the answer is a featured list can have a bunch of prose at the top, but an some point it needs a semi-bare list that doesn't have prose. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why some sort of definition (or rule out criteria) can't appear somewhere in the Good article criteria? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how contentious the criteria page is, but something along the line of "GAs may have prose and lists of prose, but if your article contains a bare list without prose, the take it to FL". It's all pretty arbritrary. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not "contains" but "your article's primary subject is a bare list without prose". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that wasn't true of the article I passed that was accused of being a list. I think I could distinguish the primary subject being "a bare list without prose" from an article with some embedded lists. What do you think of my most recent question, Jutsu (Naruto)? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a "list", but each entry is prose. Looking at some examples to try and find the line, 30 Rock (season 1) is a FL, and each entry contains some prose, but not as much as Jutsu (that's what you're talking about, right?). Then something like List of Boston Red Sox managers has no prose inside the list. To muddy the waters more, Smallville (season 1) is an FA. I think it's more because it ran the FA gauntlet than the fact that it has more prose than the 30 Rock one, but I'm not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying (bottom line)...? —Mattisse (Talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Smallville (season 1) FAC, it seems like a very "iffy" pass. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(redent) I don't have a bottom line. Obviously it's hard to say, becuase I wanted to take my article to FL, where the passes seem easy, and you get a gold star. ;-) This could never be added to the criteria, but it seems somewhere around "more than five entries, each with less than 4 sentences of prose". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, ok, I'll consider that, which at least offers something concrete. I gather FAC has no hard and fast rules either. I guess your offering here is the hardest and fastest I will find! Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 05:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The right question to ask is not "Is this a list?", but "Should this be a list?". For example Septimus Heap, to which you refer indirectly, should never have been a list, and the presence of list-like elements was a defect. Likewise this article has more to say about Jutsu than could be said in a list. Geometry guy 08:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be interested in another GA backlog elimination drive if I were to set one up? -Drilnoth (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would to Jason Rees (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I've got four articles up, so I would commit to at least four articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; I'll look into setting one up sometime this week. -Drilnoth (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give it a try. DiverseMentality 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. I'll probably take it easy while the "drive" goes on. Let me know when it starts. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably sit this one out because I'm so busy at work right now. If it does go forward, however, it would be good to make sure that it is well-publicized. I reviewed 58 last time, but I only found out about it by chance. It would be very helpful to have more than 9 participants this time. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mabye use WP:CENT? At least for the setting up stage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda like Mattisse and Gary are saying, I think this will only be a true success if we can bring in people who don't reqularly do reviews, otherwise we burn them out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good ideas; I'll look for some good places to advertise once I have the basic page setup. Would running it from February 13 to March 13 work, with prize barnstars handed out at the end of March so that on-hold articles finished after the 13th are counted? -Drilnoth (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the basic page set up here. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I'd be interested in participating and know that with rewards involved, it would be a great opportunity to on-board some new reviewers. I'm not sure how many people watchpage this talk page since there are so many inconsequential edits on the article page, so getting the word out would be key. You might consider posting the challenge on the reward board. --Eustress (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time. I have recently resumed GA reviewing after a long absence. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great!

(to Eustress): Good idea about the reward board; I'll mention something there. I've already put a notice at the top of the GAN page itself, so maybe that will help. I also asked if something could be mentioned in the Wikipedia Signpost. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re getting more reviewers, see User:Philcha/Sandbox#My GA review "template". --Philcha (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Mattisse and Gary. Besides, I don't like award schemes anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it wouldn't just lead certain editors to nominate a whole bunch more articles again, I might be inclined. As is, I'm too busy to focus on emptying Lake Michigan with a teaspoon. Once submissions are reasonably throttled, then I might be more willing to work on a backlog. Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to Malleus): The awards scheme is just there as an incentive to get people who might not otherwise do so to review some articles, and it really shouldn't be considered the centerpoint of the drive.

(responding to Jclemens): Has that happened in the past? I wasn't aware. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about doing sweeps in the meantime? We desperately need new blood for that. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an idea on how to redesign the sweeps so that they might attract more interest... would there be any interest in reformatting how it's done? I'm thinking that we could list all of the current good articles by the date they were promoted and then continually go through them to make sure that older ones are still high-quality. The current system looks kind of confusing to me. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the GA backlog is bad, have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#The_.22Queue_and_QF.22_option - they're tying themselves in knots, and the "points" system they're discussing is so complex and riddled with gotchas that it certainly deters me from reviwing or submitting. --Philcha (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped reading after the 5th comments. Way too confusing. So Drilnoth, what's your idea on redesigning the sweeps? Let us hear about it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get a page written up with my redesign idea, probably be the weekend. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have something similar at FAC: Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. Personally, I think that is a little too complicated but the FAs by date thing at the bottom is quite nice and I think close to Drilnoth's suggestion. I'd be very interested to see their proposal.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my idea: User:Drilnoth/Sandbox 2. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's an award:

• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh. I think that we have the awards for the GAN backlog elimination drive figured out, but maybe that could be used to the GA maintenance sweeps, since we don't really have anything for those at this time. -Drilnoth (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a pity that Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima isn't PD. That would be perfect for the Ling.Nut treatment. Geometry guy 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am bring this matter here because I am deeply unhappy about the way in which my nomination of Manchester Mark 1, an early stored-program computer, is being handled. The review can be found here and a personal remark made by the reviewer can be found here. It appears to me that it would be considerably easier to get this article through FAC than through GAN.

I would appreciate an outside perspective, as I realize that it's quite possible that I may have become too attached to this article, and consequently unable to see things as clearly as others might. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well at this point in time the reviewer does not appear to have reached a final decision on pass/fail/hold. This is an article that I would have happily reviewed at WP:GAN. I am currently reviewing two WP:GAN articles which I would like to complete in the next 24 hours. After that I will be doing almost no work on wikipedia for the next two weeks. If you and the reviewer cannot come to an agreement in the next two weeks and/or it is failed and you choose to resubmit it to WP:GAN then I will happily look at it. But, I can't really help before week beginning 23/2/09 at the earliest.Pyrotec (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer, much appreciated. My point though was that this is not a review but a personally motivated witch hunt. When this article is failed I will take it to FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand Malleus's last comment:

• re "personally motivated witch hunt", what motive would I have for that? We've had no (previous) conflicts and I've seen enoug to know that you're a highly-respected editor and reviewer.
• re "When this article is failed, ..." you know I err on the side of working pretty hard to get articles to pass, despite not compromising on coverage or WP:V.
• As for "a personal remark made by the reviewer can be found here", it was minor joke on an ambiguity in the phrasing of your preceding comment. In fact your preceding remark (about programming in binary), the fact that I understood it and some of my other comments reveal that we have both been involved with computers for rather a long time. --Philcha (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Witch hunt" was too strong, I apologise for that. But the article that you want isn't the article that I want. The issue quite simply is, does this article meet the GA criteria? Not is it the article that you would have written. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, we had a Olivetti P6060, bought from new in 1979 or 1980. Nice machine, twin 8" floppy disks, a paper tape reader & BASIC.Pyrotec (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a summary of what I think the main differences are between us - Malleus, please comment if you think there are errors or omissions in this list.

• Perspective, i.e. what points are important / unimportant in an encyclopedia. I've invited Fatuorum to discuss this and have given him a nice juicy target by summarising my own thoughts at Talk:Manchester_Mark_1/GA1#Perspective.
• Lack of clarity through not separating aspects of the subject and making them explicit. IMO this first arose in the "Background" section of the last version before the review. IMO the current version still does not sufficiently separate and explain for the benefit of non-specialists the significance and implications of using Williams tubes (faster & cheaper than the alternative, mercury delay lines, and did not require such precise control of the computer room's temperature; inital doubts about the tubes' reliability) and of stored programs (something we all take completely for granted to-day). I also still find the stages of the project and the objectives at each stage confusing.
• I think the article at the start of the review and at present understates the significance of the Manchester Mark 1 and of its predecessor the SSEM (aka "Baby") in the evolution of computers.

If other members of Wikiproject GA think I've got it badly wrong, I'm willing to back out of this review, as I know both Malleus and I have better things to do than continue wrangling like this. --Philcha (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I apologise for the offence unintentionally given by my attempted joke about the long history we both have with computers. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with Philcha. My background was DOS (or MSDOS), BASIC, Fortran 77, Pascal and I have used a teletype and punched paper tape for input, so I have sympathy with identifying primarily with readers with no programming experience, but I have no interest in "cushy development environments - e.g. Javascript, VB or Delphi on the client side; MS ASP, PHP, Cold Fusion, Java, etc. on servers; C / C++". So I don't see why the article should be distorted to fit those needs. Producing a whole load of defects - no graphical operating system, no CD-rom or DVD-player, no spreadsheets, comes under the category of "stating the bleeding obvious". I would award the article GA-status now. It would be great if I could find some typos or grammatical errors, especially as "MF" is the nominator, but I have better things with to do with my time than hunting for them; and I'm in favour of adding worthwhile improvements. So in summary, "It should be written for non-specialists" is probably the only thing that I agree with in your "Perspective".Pyrotec (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus repeated at Talk:Manchester Mark 1/GA1 his request that I fail the artcile, and I have regretfully complied.

Pyrotec, the point on which you agree, "It should be written for non-specialists", is the key one, and I think most of the rest follows from there. I only mentioned modern programming / scripting environments to illustrate the gulf between programming on a modern computer (or the mainframe ranges introduced since the early 1960s) and programming on the Mark 1 or, AFAIK, any other stored-program computer from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s. --Philcha (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now opened a community review here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does it seem like so many of these GACs are nowhere near being GAs, and it seems as if the nominators expect the reviewers to do all the work to take it to GA level. This also seems a complaint at FAC, although I think the articles are usually of a higher quality. Rarely, if ever, have I been able to pass an article without making minor, or (more commonly) major changes.

I usually don't fail an article unless the nominator doesn't respond, but sometimes I wonder whether I should write out these huge long reviews, and do it three times over to catch all the mistakes, just to have it pass. On the other hand, I could just give some advisory comments, and just let it fail. A puzzling conondrum. Anyone else have this feeling?

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 15:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No article has passed FAC without tons of work. If one seems to pass FAC with flying colors, it's only because a ridiculous amount of time was previously spent reviewing, proof-reading, copy-editing, etc. If less work is spent reviewing prior to an FAC nom, then of course more work will be needed during the process. GA is oftentimes (not always) a crucial step before FA, and sometimes articles (and their writers) suffer after a poor or limited GA review -- how many times have we seen "I'm nominating this article for Featured because it just passed Good Article today and the reviewer said it was awesome and didn't need anything else"? At the same time, many new editors simply give up because they received a three sentence review that basically says "This needs too much work, so I have to fail it. Here are three or four examples of how to fix it." Yes, some articles require more work than others. Yes, reviewing is time consuming. However, I would rather waste my time writing an extensive review, knowing that the information is saved for posterity on the talk page in case someone will be interested in the future, than demoralize or give false hope to inexperienced editors. María (habla conmigo) 15:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true (and I'm not trying to see I cop out on my own reviews). However, I'm mostly wondering what is the line between a straight fail, and working really hard to get to a GA? Is there one (i.e. work on every article, and don't fail any)? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)3[reply]

Personally, I'd only quick-fail an article if it is obvious that it can't be made a GA anytime soon. Otherwise, I make minor edits if needed before passing or, if there are major problems that can probably still be resolved, I put it on hold for improvements. I think that just when to put an article on hold as opposed to quick-failing or fixing it up yourself is really just personal preference. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every article is different, and every reviewer is, as well, so I don't think we can work with absolutes here. My personal philosophy is that if it fulfills the quickfail criteria (no refs, for example), then of course you don't need to waste your time pointing out every grammatical mistake. Some articles are worth the blood, sweat and tears, but again, it's entirely subjective. I spent quite a bit of time helping the author of George Bernard Shaw through the idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia MOS, but for me that was so worth it. I mean, come on! It's Shaw! María (habla conmigo) 16:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly that article was vandalised a couple of days ago, but nobody seems to have noticed.[1] The effort to keep articles at GA can often be greater than the effort to get them there in the first place. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I view the GA process as more of a collaboration than a strict evaluation. Consider this: our goal is to build an encyclopedia. To some extent, there's recognition of good work involved, but that's not the real benefit of GA. When I take an article through GA, I almost always learn something from the reviewer. When I review a GA, I sincerely hope I help teach the nominator something about what I consider a GA to be. Thus, it's a collaborative, learning/teaching process. In each reviewer/nominator pair, there's a chance to teach and learn, so that by taking a bunch of articles through GA, I learn what other evaluators want, and by evaluating a ton of articles, I get to give my best advice on article building to a ton of different editors. Once there's nothing more to be learned, (that is, when I've mastered all the GA expectations handily) then maybe it's time to move on to FA space. In essence, we're training world-class encyclopedia article writers at GA, one review at a time. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of comments here with which I agree: "it seems as if the nominators [often] expect the reviewers to do all the work", "every article is different, and every reviewer is, as well", "In essence, we're training world-class encyclopedia article writers at GA, one review at a time", etc.

However we need to do something about the quality of incoming articles so that reviewers can review more articles per month. The long waiting time frustrates editors and sometimes leads to a review starting when the nominators / editors are not as available (I just passed Rufous-crowned Sparrow after appealing for bird enthusiasts to rally round, as the nominator had been inactive since 31 Jan). I recently suggested producing a "Writing GAs for Dummies" guide that will do the job over 90% of the time, is easier to understand than the maze of policies and guidelines, and can fit on one page - and that should be supplemented by a list of e.g the last 10-20 GAs per topic.

Let's build a list of practical proposals, prioritise them and then implement them. --Philcha (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As perhaps our recent experience demonstrates, having examples to follow of good articles in a particular genre can make it much easier on both nominator and reviewer. The first GA in any particular field to some extent establishes a benchmark. I think was Geometry guy who was recently asking for examples of good GA reviews, which should probably be resuscitated. But perhaps in conjunction with a more easily accessible and finer grained set of examples of different types of articles. For instance, not just journalism, but local newspapers, national newspapers, magazines ... say, with links to the articles in their GA state and also the state they were nominated in, along with the review. Would be good examples for both nominators and reviewers.

What about producing a checklist of things a nominator should check before submitting an article for review?

In reply to jclemens, I don't think it's possible to master all the GA expectations, as each article introduces subtle new themes and requires judgement. More importantly I think that in the ideal world every reviewer would be active at both FAC and GAN. Things learnt at FAC can also be useful at GAN, and in your own writing; GAN isn't a training ground for FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, FAC still scares me, and I have 6 GAs and 40+ reviews. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC scares me as well, that's part of the thrill. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAGA is a checklist, but the problem is it refers to policies and guidelines, which refer to further policies and guidelines, etc., etc. I think one page midway between WP:WIAGA and the policies and guidelines, with a few practical tips (e.g. "use Dispenser's Link Checker before nominating") would help us in "training world-class encyclopedia article writers at GA, one review at a time". --Philcha (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WIAGA is a checklist aimed at reviewers, doesn't help nominators much. I was thinking of something more along the lines of your practical tips idea. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what the quick fail criteria is for?じんない 20:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The quick fail criteria are written for reviewers, not nominators. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a "Writing your first GA" essay. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to try my hand at WP:WYFGA and see how it goes. I hope it doesn't seem too much like "gaming" the system. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone else is interested enough to have a go. Some pages you could mine for ideas:

• User:Philcha/Sandbox/Producing a Good Article - a draft I started and offered for comments, but no-one responded.
• User:Jacklee/Writing good articles has a light, almost chatty style that I will be helpful to new(ish) editors.
• Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles - good content, but wrong title and a little bureaucratic in tone, with too many WP:acronyms.
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles, that Tim Vickers mentioned - good content, but IMO too long for a newbies' guide. --Philcha (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thanks. I'm offline for a while, so anyone can feel free to add/integrate those into the article without edit conflicts. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure how long Jclemens meant by "a while", so I filled out most (?) of the gaps in User:Philcha/Sandbox/Producing a Good Article. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about implementing a bot that will go through each GAC listed, and then make a list of any and all cleanup templates that listed in the articles. Does anyone think this will be helpful? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be helpful, and I can't see what it would hurt (other than leading to possibly a bunch of demotions). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is easily doable via WP:AWB's listmaking options. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• here ya go:
• Alprazolam
• Australia
• Thorbjørn Jagland
• Marilyn Manson
• Schindler's List
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]