Archives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a quick note that I've updated User:StatisticianBot to reflect the page changes. The report pages have been moved too, to match the rest of the page changes, and can now be found at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report or WP:GAN/R, although the old pages persist as redirects, of course. If anyone notices any hiccups due to the page transfer, let me know so that I can fix it. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the "don't nominate movies that haven't been released yet" rule apply to sporting events for stability rules? Someone nominated UEFA Euro 2008 but since the event in question is a year away and obviously massive amounts of editing will be done to reflect the circumstances that actually occur (obviously there can be no general "results" section yet, for example), should it be quickfailed? Cheers, CP 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with this. Of course, once the UEFA Euro 2008 competition has occured, and the article meets the criteria in place at that time, there is nothing wrong with it becoming a GA then. Wikipedia is not in a rush... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the event is close at hand, there's hardly a point in making such an article a GA at all, the content will almost certainly change radically in the very near future, barring catastropic disaster which disables Wikipedia. However, if the article probably won't be changing radically in the near future, why not acknowladge an article in such a state as good if it really is good? Such an article could maintain stability and quality for many months after all. But i'm only speaking about a hypothetical article, in this particular article's case, there seems to be so little information that the article is more like a list at the moment. Homestarmy 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to quick fail this when I saw it turn up yesterday, for this very reason. I was going to use the precedent set at 2007 Rugby World Cup, and the good grace the Rugby crowd took that failure, as the rationale in the talk page. In the end though, being a very recent addition to the GA reviewer crowd, I chickened out decided to let a more experienced reviewer do it! There are also only 5 references in there. Exactly the same reasons were used for failure when they took the article to FAC a few months ago. Carre 07:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's not even limited to future sporting events. What about future construction projects? A lot of the sections just have one sentence because there simply isn't enough information out there yet, so I suppose this one would fail for "broadness of coverage" most likely. Cheers, CP 20:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to fail the article because I felt it was original research in that it did use sources but the sources never directly state anything specifically about Hispanic Admirals in the US Navy, it was just more facts that had something either to do with Hispanics in the military or admirals in general. I would like another reviewer to look at it as well. T Rex | talk 03:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK - for as long as the sources back up the fact they're placed inline with, it should suffice. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

An idea, based on my experience: When a reviewer fails a GAC, it would be helpful for future reviewers (after the article has been improved and re-nominated) if the first review lists the criteria, followed by {{Y}} and {{N}} tags. This way, the second reviewer can easily see what was good about the article and what needed work. (Obviously, improvements and negative changes are possible, but this would give us a good place to start considering what to look for.) I personally feel limited by templates like {{PGAN}}, but the checks and X's would be useful for me.

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

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

(ec) G'guy beat me to it! Yes, GAList uses buttons which cover pass, fail, question, and (apparently) "what the fuck?". LaraLove 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think everyone's going to have their own personal opinions and preferences on how to pass/fail articles, so whatever works best for a particular reviewer is fine with me. Personally, I'm not a big fan of {{Y}} and {{N}} tags; I see them used quite heavily at WP:FAC, and I don't think it really helps the process much -- it gives the false impression to editors that, by fixing the specific issues that are listed, the article will pass. This isn't often the case, as many times, its impossible to list ALL of the issues that are wrong with the article, so it's better to direct your review more closely to the GA criteria (or FA criteria, for that matter). {{GAList}}, IMHO, does a far better job at this. Plus, it's only one meta-data tag, instead of potentially using several, which could slow things down (the heavy use of the {{Y}} and {{N}} tags at WP:FAC is one of the major reasons why that page takes a long time to load, BTW),... Dr. Cash 18:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally use the list, and then write a detail explanation of exactly how I feel the article fails to meet the criteria, so sort of the best of both worlds. Also, if there's confusion on my review on behalf of the nominator or a future reviewer, they're always welcome to draw me back to the article and explain myself. I hold myself accountable for everything I write. On a tangent, Dr. Cash, the hold on Labrador Retriever is over twice past due now, might be time to shoo it away. Easier for me to prod you here than on your talk page. =)Cheers, CP 18:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

In my view, the prose is the most important part of the review, so I definitely approve of Canadian Paul's approach. I don't think any template or style of review should be mandatory, but it would be reasonable to define "best practice". Geometry guy 18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I do...although only a newbie here, I figured that the list is an easy & quick reference to the fails, but recognizing it doesn't give any help to the editors on how to fix, the sectioned prose following goes into the specifics. I guess pretty much what CP does. Carre 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oooh. Carre yours is even better than mine because yours divides the prose by section too. I do mine chronologically (at least, in the order that the information appears in the article), which generally prevents me from doing it by section - but I think that any review that clearly states where and in what capacity the article fails in is good. And like I said, the reviewer should be able to go back at any time and explain exactly what the issues are to other editors and the nominator. Cheers, CP 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Okay, I've done up a modest proposal in my sandbox. In addition to the style stuff listed above, I've rephrased the items as questions, and made them all into positive options, so that the use of pro- or con- icons is consistent. (Does a pro- vote for "Lack of images" – 6b – mean the article does lack images or does not lack them?) Comments and feedback are welcome, and again if someone can walk me through the next steps I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance. – Scartol · Talk 01:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think of it this way. A "nay" vote for "Lack of images" means that the article lacks images despite the fact that free images could be reasonably believed to be available. Example: Wade Mainer got an award from the United States national government, but I never thought to check the award's site to see if there was a free picture until someone suggested that I do - and indeed there was. So if I had submitted that article for GA before I got the picture, I could get a "nay" because an image was available that I did not use. Cheers, CP 17:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what a "nay" vote for "Lack of images" suggests to me. It's like asking: "Does this cup lack fluid?" "No" would mean it does not lack fluid, meaning it has fluid in it. Notice that all the other items on the template are positive-format: Well-written, etc. Those make immediate sense to me. It's a minor point, to be sure, since both templates will remain available. – Scartol · Talk 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1]

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

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

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

I have some questions for the more experienced reviewers out there:

In the course of reviewing Wisden Trophy, I did a fair bit of copy-editing. Does that invalidate me from having the final say on pass/fail? (The article is on hold for other reasons at the moment, but once sorted I think it should pass).

Is an online citation source that requires a viewer to register (in this instance, cricinfo) acceptable for GA?

I was going to ask for a second opinion, once the on-hold issues are addressed, for these reasons. However, if I ask the questions now, then I may not have to! Thanks. Carre 14:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can actively improve an article as you review it. You just don't want to review articles you've already contributed substantially to prior to nomination. As far as sources requiring registration, you want to avoid those if other sources are available. However, if you can find no other sources, they can be used. Those that require a subscription are even less appreciated, so for those you really need to find another source. LaraLove 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though in some fields such as chemistry, nearly all of the primary sources online require (very expensive) subscriptions - so for an article like aldol reaction there may be no choice....! Walkerma 15:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something isn't found online for free doesn't automatically invalidate the source. Even academic journals can still be obtained for free by pretty much anyone that wants it, by **gasp** going to the library! Plus, most sites requiring subscription will at least off the abstract free of charge. Dr. Cash 00:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

First, let me say that I didn't mean that paid subscriptions invalidate a source. I just meant you should try to use free sources when available. That aside, for what Dr. Cash has said, if you feel there are whole sections needing to be added or changed, talk it out on the talk page with the review and let the editors of the article make the changes. That's how I do it. LaraLove 04:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a side issue to a pointless discussion about merging GA with PR, it has been pointed out that the GAN page is rather complicated. I guess it hasn't been looked at for some time, as some of the instructions were out-of-date. Anyway, I've taken the liberty of giving it a bit of a copyedit and tidy. I hope I've not done anything controversial. In particular, I've moved the instructions to a /guidelines subpage, and intend to work on it a bit there. I hope others will join in if necessary. Geometry guy 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great. I was going to talk to you about the possibility of changing around so that the two columns would no longer be columns but one above the other, then I saw you'd done it. Looks good. Lara❤Love 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few more changes, mostly cosmetic. Those interested are invited to check out the /guidelines subpage. Geometry guy 23:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 29th September 2007. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Derek.cashman
2. Canadian Paul
3. VanTucky
4. Carre
5. Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Epbr123 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Congrats to all of the other four reviewers! Keep up the great work! Sadly, the backlog still isn't getting any smaller,... On another note, I'm a bit surprised that I got the #1 spot again -- I thought I was slipping a bit as I was busy with other things, like trying to salvage Criticism of Wal-Mart from losing its GA status! Dr. Cash 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing well early in the week...2 reviews a day at one stage. But it couldn't last...maybe next week :D  — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 09:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think everyone's putting in such great effort, but it's a bit disheartening how little, if at all, the backlog goes down. I try to do one review a day (quickfails not withstanding), partially because I want to make sure the one review I do gets the attention it deserves and partially because nominating articles like this for deletion shows how "You don't seem to understand the purpose of wikipedia.org". Sigh. Part of the reason I started assessing articles was because it's more pleasant to work on quality from the top than the bottom. Anyhow, congratulations to Dr. Cash and all those who are reviewing! If nothing else, we're at least keeping it below 200 most days! Cheers, CP 14:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to thank you all as well. I don't review as much as I should (I'm more interested in building articles myself), but I do plan to do more of it once I've finished with my three front-burners. Your diligence is appreciated. – Scartol · Talk 15:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved some of the discussions, such as those pertaining to the 'Good Article Ladder', 'streamlining', and 'feature good articles daily', over to WikiProject Good Articles, since these deal more with issues pertaining to the development of the overall GA program. Dr. Cash 05:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Wrad 05:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This is partly a continuation of the streamlining thread above, but is a separate question that has emerged out of similar discussions.)

Although some further cosmetic simplifications of the GAN guidelines are possible, there is a limit to what can be achieved, because GAN has become a rather elaborated process. Articles are first nominated, then put on review, then maybe on hold, perhaps withdrawn, or a second opinion is sought, etc. etc. Why do we need all this? Or, to ask the basic question that prompts this post:

Once a nominated article has a reviewer, why should it remain listed at GAN?

Surely a simpler system would be as follows.

1. Article editors nominate articles by listing them at GAN.
2. Interested reviewers peruse the list and choose an article to review. One they do so, they remove it from the list and leave a message on the article talk page (not here).
3. The rest of the process is conducted on the article talk page: the reviewer studies the article, lists issues, the article is edited, and a pass/fail decision is made. Talk page templates are updated, and if the article is passed, it is added to WP:GA.

The sole purpose of {{GAReview}} is to inform other reviewers that the article is under review. Isn't it simpler just to remove the article from the list of nominations seeking reviewers? In this viewpoint, GAN is a dating service between nominators and reviewers: once the date is made, the agent does not attend.

What would we lose? Well, {{GAonhold}} would no longer be needed: this is a matter for discussion between nominator and reviewer on the article talk page. {{GA2ndopinion}} would no longer be formalized: an unsure reviewer could either call a friend, or have the article renominated. Such formalization is, in my view, instruction creep, and would be no loss at all. Geometry guy 20:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for anything that avoids instruction creep - the only concerns I'd have are...

• The 'second opinion' template is more likely to get the attention of other reviewers by being visible to everyone; relying on asking a friend etc assumes such people are accessible, and renominating adds the article back to the GAN page anyway.
• Tracking review progress: there have been a few concerns recently about reviews taking too long and multiple simultaneous reviews. These are more likely to be picked up with the 'under review' template also visible to everyone.

You've done a fantastic job on clarifying and trimming so far. The whole package is now much more user-friendly. It's possible that the complexity of the process puts off potential new reviewers, but, since the process is open to anyone to participate, I do think we are now approaching a minimum functional level of instructions. EyeSerene^TALK 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added Cave Junction, Oregon to be reviewed, so I figured I'd review one in return. I've never done it before, so I'm a bit uncertain. I was thinking I'd do Roslin Castle. It needs a better lead paragraph, but otherwise I'd say it's a good article, except for maybe needing references. It doesn't have a ref at the end of each paragraph. Should this be a sticking point? They aren't controversial statements, mostly sentences like

Roslin was more severely damaged by the Earl of Hertford, who burned the castle during the War of the Rough Wooing in 1544. The keep was all but destroyed, and its one remaining ruined wall can still be seen.

or paragraphs like

The castle was rebuilt in the late 16th century. A new five storey east range was built into the side of the rock, and the gatehouse was rebuilt, this time with a permanent stone bridge. The upper part of the east range was renovated in 1622, with renaissance details and carving to door and window surrounds. Roslin suffered again from the artillery of Cromwell’s commander in Scotland, General Monck, in 1650. It was further damaged by a Reforming mob in 1688.

The bulk of the refs are books, so I imagine it came from one or more of them, but I can't tell which one, or which pages. Should I give it a hold-on and list all the problems on the talk page, or is it acceptable. - Peregrine Fisher 21:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]