Archives

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

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

I have been working in (or is it on?) my sandbox for the last few days developing a guide for editors that nominate articles at GAN. It is aimed at nominators similar to how Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles was developed for reviewers. The guide mentions common mistakes, tips for getting their article passed, etiquette with reviewers, and actions to take after an article passes/fails. I wanted to mention this proposal here for editors to determine if it should be moved to the Wikipedia space and mentioned in the intro at GAN (something like: "Before nominating an article, have you read the GAN guide of helpful hints/common errors?"). After reviewing over two hundred articles, and encountering recurring errors in these reviews, I created this page to prevent nominators from making the same mistakes over and over again. The page was quickly made and can be further expanded by knowledgeable reviewers. Based on consensus, it can be left as one page or split up into two: "Helpful tips/common mistakes" and "After your GA passes/fails" (I'm horrible with these titles!). If split, the "After your GA passes/fails" could be included as a link that the reviewer leaves on the article's talk page after s/he passes or fails the article.

One idea that can be incorporated with the guide is for all nominators to include a certain word/symbol (whatever we want it to be) next to their nomination that documents that they have read the guide and have ensured that the article does not have any of the common mistakes mentioned in the guide. Although we are currently focusing on preventing instruction creep, I believe that the addition of the word/symbol will allow reviewers to know which articles have been copyedited and improved to avoid the common mistakes that take time in reviewing the article. Reviewers then can instead focus on larger issues a nomination may have. This may decrease the number of quick-fails, and move some articles that would normally be left on hold by some reviewers straight to passing. I'm not stating that this page will prevent all mistakes that a nominator's article may contain, but it will at least alleviate some of the most common problems that nominations may contain and save time in completing reviews. We are currently facing a large backlog, and if reviewers don't have to worry about focusing on common mistakes, this can speed up the process/make it easier for new reviewers, and thus help in removing the backlog.

This page was put together quickly, and can be rewritten/expanded (the page needs it!) with more tips and common mistakes that other reviewers have experienced in their reviews. I'm open to any suggestions for the guide's improvement, and hope that it assists in preparing new nominators, improve the quality of nominations, and aid in clearing the backlog. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, and I look forward to seeing it expanded. I've added one of my pet hates there, will add anything else I can think of. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet is my cheatsheet for myself. Feel free to crib stuff from there. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, coming from a first time nominator (for Salt Satyagraha). These are helpful guides, which I've already used for some tidying (making sure the lead touches on all the sections, wikilinking dates, distance conversion, etc.). The idea of asking editors to acknowledge they've read the guide is a good one. It would have helped me. I think it would also greatly speed up the review process (and reduce the backlog), due to fewer problems to address in each article. ~ priyanath talk 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good in terms of the actual instructions. But reading it, the large(ish) paragraphs made me want to skim rather than read in-depth. Maybe for some areas, using bullets or numbers (especially for a process in which the order is important) for a list would be good. Nice work, VanTucky 02:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a list of bullet/check points would make it easier to follow. ~ priyanath talk 02:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that peer review isn't worth a darn (submit an article, get an automated bot answer last I checked), GA pre-review would be really helpful, particularly as an alternative to quick-failing. Montanabw^(talk) 03:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guide definitely can be divided up some more with bullets as suggested by VanTucky, and I'll be tinkering with it the next few days. Anyone who wants to contribute to it is more than welcome since this is for the benefit of everybody and current reviewers know the problems they always run into. Is everyone interested in having nominators mentioning next to their nomination that they have read the guide (using a keyword/symbol)? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ealdgyth/GA review cheatsheet is my new God. Seriously, combine Nehram's knowledge/experience (no offense to Ealdgyth!) with the simple straightforward approach there, and everyone will want to review! Well, almost everyone :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I "borrowed" a good chunk from User:Epbr123 so lets be fair. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the idea of a 'How to...' guide for preparing an article for GA nomination has definite merit, but I'm also fairly strongly opposed to including a symbol next to nominations showing it's been used. My reasons for this are:

• Introducing more bureaucracy (we've just got rid of the LONG tag; don't lets replace it with something else!)
• More seriously, having read the guide is no guarantee that it will be understood or properly applied by an editor... however, the presence of a symbol may be taken as such by a potential reviewer. Many, if not most, reviewers will naturally preferentially review tagged nominations; this will be noted by editors, and the tag will become 'compulsory' if an article is to be reviewed at all (or at least within a reasonable timeframe). This could have two effects:

1. We may, albeit unintentionally, restrict access to GA to those editors that are able to 'self-review'. Rather than the collaborative process of education that goes on at GA at the moment, especially with new editors, we may end up driving people away.

2. To get reviewed a nomination needs a tag... therefore all nominations will be tagged (regardless of whether or not the guide has been used). The presence of a tag thus becomes meaningless.

We could certainly strongly encourage editors to read and apply the guide, (and incidentally new reviewers as well) but I really don't think we should go further than that. EyeSerene^TALK 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, per EyeSerene's reasoning, WP:KISS and WP:CREEP. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I did foresee those possibilities mentioned, I still think the process would benefit more from using the symbols then from the possible negative consequences. I don't believe that the tag would be instruction creep, because right now the process appears to be simple enough if we have so many nominations from different editors. As nominators began using the tag, other nominators would begin to notice them and look to the guide so that they could use the tag for their nomination. I do realize that some editors may just add the tag to advance their review, but I'm assuming good faith on their intent, and figure more people will correctly use the tag then those who won't. Again, if there is consensus for one way or the other, I'll be happy with whatever we decide to do. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nice essay in my view: I support almost all of it, and see only a few minor problems. The most significant of these are where the essay goes beyond the good article criteria. Compliance with the full, intricate manual of style is not a GA requirement. For example WP:UNITS is not a GA requirement. Also, the section on inline citations does not mention the Harvard referencing alternative.

As for adding symbols at GAN, I am essentially against this, though not as strongly as might be expected: it's an idea that might work, but I'm unconvinced. I basically agree with EyeSerene here. I can also see the essay turning into: an added level of bureaucracy, a "pre-review process", in which editors mark articles which pass the common errors essay; part of the GA guidelines. That's the trouble with instruction creep: it happens one step at a time through quite reasonable suggestions.

The argument that nomination should be made harder is fine, but it misses a key point: we really need more nominators to become new reviewers. I do not believe that the solution to the backlog is to introduce systems which make it easier for experienced reviewers to review more quickly. As EyeSerene points out, such systems are subject to abuse, and I don't believe that any review should be carried out swiftly. So we need more reviewers, and we aren't getting them right now. We won't change this by adding more bureaucracy to the system. Instead, we should try to remove such bureaucracy, and make the system easier to understand. This has been discussed much on talk pages, but on the ground we are still adding instructions rather than removing them. Geometry guy 21:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably hand it out to new nominators on their talk pages if their first article is a long way short as a sort of pre-screening before doing a full review. I wonder if my doing full reviews of bad articles ever does any good... I should track them down and see if the author ever nominated again....if not, then it wasn't much use...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea, and in fact I'll probably start linking to this essay when failing GANs in future. EyeSerene^TALK 09:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, it looks like we're going to avoid the tag, and just include a link on the GAN page. I think it would be great for any reviewer to alert new nominators of the link when they perform their reviews. I have expanded the guide with some of the suggestions above, so I would appreciate any more contributions/corrections before I move it to Wikipedia namespace. Are there any further comments/ideas/opposition for the guide before it is moved? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link on the GAN page in the "How to nominate an article" section. Again, if anyone wants to add/correct anything, please do so. Thank you to all that helped to contribute. Hopefully this helps in removing some of the common problems and recruits some new reviewers. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put Moberly-Jourdain incident on hold. It's in the Miscellaneous section now, any ideas on where on WP:GA it should go when passed? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an interesting read. Possibly in either "Myths, mythology & miracles", "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures", or "World History-Europe"? You could probably create a new section if you see fit. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to "Myths, mythology & miracles". dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we on a backlog elimination drive that I don't know about? I've seen a marked increase in motion at GAN over the last couple days—I personally was in a little race with VanTucky to see who could nab the most reviews. Has anyone else noticed this, or am I just delusional? Kakofonous (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...I think it's just you, mate ;) I've got heaps of FA drives going on, so I'm not as active as I'd like to be around here. All the more respect to those who are! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I randomly went on a video game reviewing spree, but I don't know about the other categories... I prolly should be helping out with the Sweeps, but I kinda forget about them... :P David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the backlog graph for the full story. I will update it soon from WP:GAN/R. Geometry guy 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was just a little flurry of reviews all at once, it happens sometimes. I also just this week started reviewing as much as I used to, I was on hiatus temporarily. But the backlog, unfortunately, is still persistent. VanTucky 00:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need somebody with a burning interest in the American road system. That's not me. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there doesn't appear to be many people who have that intrest, other than the members of the USRD itself. I don't know how to resolve this, but I was thinking we could send a notice to the GA wikiproject and see if they could ramp up reviews. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep noticing that a lot of our backlog is coming from a few well-organised WikiProjects with a high throughput (notably US Roads and Hurricanes). Does anyone see a problem in explicitly inviting these wikiprojects to review their own nominations? I don't mean the nominators themselves, but other people in the project who haven't worked on the article. It's a bit of a conflict of interest, in that other project members would like to see project articles pass, but I think we ought to assume that the reviewers would also be concerned that the articles are up to standard. Thoughts? --jwanders^Talk 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine with me- after all, they are the ones interested in it, and as long as they are objective, it also helps codify style and consistency. Don't forget about the sports/games people though- that's got a couple dozen in backlog. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May want to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop in regards to U.S. Roads. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and believe consensus supports this, but we need to modify a sentence in our guidelines to really encourage it: see also, my comments here. Geometry guy 23:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as U.S. Roads goes, the project does have its own peer review process as well as A-class review, so articles do get reviewed by other road editors. I'd personnally prefer someone not from the project to review the articles to ensure they make sense to someone not as familiar with roads in general. --Holderca1 ^talk 16:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well since I wen to WP:AWNB last year drum up support for a GA100 push for WP:AUS, I refrain from reviewing Australian articles, since I feel a bit under pressure to not batter people who work hard, since I encouraged them to write GACs for Australia, so I felt I might be vulnerable to soft passing Australian articles. I still fail the really bad ones though. Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 00:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, and Holderca1's comment above. Just because the GAN guidelines permit an editor to review a particular article, it does not mean they should. Often it is a good idea to have input from someone outside the WikiProject, and I'm perfectly happy for WikiProjects to recommend this to their participants. What I think is unhelpful is a prohibition in the GAN guidelines. Geometry guy 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should send out a form message to all of the WikiProjects, asking them to either assist in reviewing articles that fall under their scope or other articles. There are over a large amount of WikiProjects that relate to articles, and I believe that sending out a request for help will hopefully drive some new reviewers here. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions on this page have grown to the point where most users probably aren't brave enough to read any of them. I've tried redrafting them, but didn't find much that I could easy pare off (see next section for one idea). If any one else feels like having a go, feel free. --jwanders^Talk 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried doing the same c. 4 months ago, and had some initial success, but then ran against the same wall that you have. The GAN instructions are long because the GAN process is bureaucratic and complicated. For a glimpse of the complexity of the GA process see here. Unfortunately, those who are familiar with the process are comfortable with it, and do not seem to realise how offputting it is for newcomers.

Consequence? The reviewing resource remains static, at about 30-50 articles on hold at a time, while the backlog is growing approximately linearly.

I have offered to automate some GA processes, and Happy-melon has generously offered to help with MelonBot, but his offer was ignored, and I am not willing to take automation forward while so many heads remain in the warm, comfortable sand. Geometry guy 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I proposed an instructions streamline back in 2006. Idea got a lot more support back then, and we were still tagging articles long (which, in hindsight, was pretty silly). Interestingly, the final redraft we agreed on is still in my userspace, User:Jwanders/GAN --jwanders^Talk 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a person is to review an article, they can take the extra two minutes to review it properly. Also, what makes the GAN process complicated? You either fail, pass, put on hold, or request a second opinion. That, at least to me, is not confusing enough to compromise the ease of reviewing GANs. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is not to compromise the ease, but to make it easier. What is easy about making three edits instead of one? Geometry guy 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, are people that lazy? Second, if you were to remove on-hold, all articles would either pass or fail, and you would still need 3 edits. Now, the majority of the articles aren't quite ready to pass, yet not bad enough to fail. Therefor, we put it on hold for minor improvments, instead of failing just because of a minor issue. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not suggesting that articles have to pass/fail upon review; hold the decision for a bit is fine, and yes can result in a spur to improve the article. I'm wondering if it has to done so formally? Can't a reviewer simply say in their review "I'll pass this if x, y, & z are dealt with within the next week?" Then the entire block of "on hold" instructions can be shifted into one sentence of the "Reviewing articles" page.--jwanders^Talk 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and apologies for not explaining myself well. I have no wish to remove "on hold": in fact I think it should be the default. What I think is crazy is that putting an article on hold requires three edits: first to tell the nominator what needs to be fixed; second to add the on hold template to the article page; third to add the on hold signal to WP:GAN. I'm sure reviewers are not lazy, but if new reviewers have to read pages of instructions to understand this system, then they are less likely to contribute. Why not just make one edit and forget the rest? Geometry guy 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think a updated version of User:Jwanders/GAN is right on the money of what we want, possibly even shorter if possible. But the situation below needs to be settled first. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, User:Jwanders/GAN is the previous redraft accepted in 2006; User:Jwanders/GARedraft is my proposed redraft of the present instruction block. We're free to use either one, of course. --jwanders^Talk 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Copied over the copy edited blocks for the intro and how to nominate. I took the liberty of removing the "tools" from the bottom of the lead box, as i'm not sure anyone uses them; if someone does, they can easily be put back. I also removed the large caution block from the top of the nominations section: those that read instructions will have already read the same things above; those that don't, won't.--jwanders^Talk 08:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how helpful the "On hold" status is, nor whether "Second opinion" is used at all. It the interest of paring down the excessive amount of instructions at the top of this page, I wondering if both of these options could be removed? "Holds" could be done informally instead, and articles which need second opinions instead taken to GAR. Thoughts? --jwanders^Talk 02:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They serve different purposes. On hold indicates a decision being a GA/not being a GA should be done within 7 (or is it 5? same diff...) days. Second opinion indicates it won't be done unless someone else jumps in and helps out. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors of the article are given seven days to address the issues if it were to be put on hold... Qst (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in several situations where both "On Hold" and "Second Opinion" were very helpful. Wrad (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jwanders. The ideas behind "On Hold" and "Second Opinion" are fine, but the bureaucratic formalization has little benefit. "On hold" is an article talk page matter and does not need to be backed up by multiple templates. It suffices to leave a message on the talk page. In my view, aside from quick-fails, giving nominators time to fix problems should be the default approach to GA reviews, so that as soon as an article is under review, it is effectively "on hold", albeit with no deadline specified. Reviewers should be encouraged to leave a talk page message early in their review. It should be left to the reviewer to specify a reasonable time period to fix problems: the period surely depends on the nature of the problems. We can provide advice at WP:Reviewing good articles, but there is no reason for having a bunch of templates to back it up and so many instructions at GAN.

The "Second Opinion" templates are equally unnecessary. If a reviewer does not reach a conclusion, they should simply leave a talk page message, and remove "On review" from the nomination so that someone else can review the article. The new reviewer will of course benefit from the comments by the first reviewer. Why formalize it? Geometry guy 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dissagree. The on-hold and second opinion are fine as they are. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 19:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound like I'm snubbing you Geometry Guy, but this has been discussed before (as you know), and the resounding majority of reviewers find the current templates to be helpful. On Hold and the related hold templates are absolutely essential to the smooth operation of hold periods, and without the 2nd Opinion template, there's no formal way for us to catalogue those reviews needing a second opinion. As I've pointed out before, removing or revamping templates is not going to help us reduce the backlog, only getting more articles reviewed is going to do that. Shuffling around the process of reviewing while we need to get down to the business of doing reviews is counterproductive. VanTucky 19:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I often put articles on hold, since this lets me move borderline cases to a state where I can pass them with confidence. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, on hold should be the default, and it should be possible to signal time periods with one edit instead of three. I know this has been raised before, but it is interesting that it has been raised again, I guess by someone new to the GAN process. To deal with the backlog we need to attract new reviewers. This is another small illustration that the current bureaucratic set-up, while comfortable for the regulars, is not succeeding in this respect. Geometry guy 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my reason for proposing this was not because on-hold and 2nd opinion aren't useful. It's simply that the instruction block at the top of the page has too much in it, and I believe it either intimidates potential new reviewers or leads them to skim over the instructions. I think something has to be dropped from there, and the two I suggested seemed like the easiest options. Is there something else we could take out instead? --jwanders^Talk 20:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are both extremely useful. So, would you rather compromise the efficiency of reviewing, or assume that it would make it easy for newcomers? Also, if a person is that new, they should get more experience before reviewing. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the previous discussion of this issue, and on the right is a graph of the backlog, which has continued to increase since then. I would only correct VanTucky as follows: "...the resounding majority of regular reviewers...". At the moment, new reviewers barely replace natural attrition, and, given the formidable instructions, I am not surprised. Geometry guy 20:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, why not start another backlog elimination drive instead of removing two of the most useful reviewing tools, which wouldn't work at all? Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against a backlog elimination drive, but Julian, look at the graph: do you not see the rapid bounceback that followed the previous backlog elimination drive? Extrapolating the current linear trend backwards, it is almost as if the previous b.e.d. didn't happen. Geometry guy 20:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that. It could be a monthly ordeal? Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about reformatting the process to be similar to that for FA? Discussion sections for each article and a Good Article Coordinator or Coordinators to help guide things along? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. That would make the backlog worse. Also, that would make it more confusing. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The beauty of GA is that it is lightweight: most articles need just one nominator and one reviewer, and so the process is inherently scalable. Sadly it has become overly bureaucratic, but it is still lightweight, and that is its underexploited strength. Geometry guy 20:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The GAN reviewing process if fine as it is, so why change it around and remove on-hold and second opinion, and confuse the heck out of wikipedia? Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know I'm not going to convince you, but Wikipedia is a lot more than this talk page. For instance, the second opinion process was only created in September 2007, and "on hold" has become more bureaucratic by stages. Regular reviewers like the system and I have a lot of respect for them. I will continue to document the GA process drowning in its own failure to address instruction creep for general information. Sadly I have been unable to help. Geometry guy 21:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not as partial to the second opinion as I am to the On hold. Second opinion I can live without, but on-hold is an esssential to GAN reviewing. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone was saying to get rid of the "on hold" part in practice but just in name. Currently most articles follow this process: Nomination -> Reviewing -> On hold (7 days) -> Pass or Fail. I think what is being proposed is to roll the on hold process into the review, so the process would be: Nomination -> Reviewing (7 days) -> Pass or Fail. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that changing the reviewing process would make it more confusing for experienced reviewers, thus, elevating the backlog further. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 21:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the backlog elimination drive. I'm not as concerned about a bounceback or about rising GA noms and reviews as I am about people having to wait longer than a month for a review. If we can keep that from happening, that would be wonderful. Wrad (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons I stopped reviewing at GA is the “hold”. Holds are optional and to be applied at the reviewer’s reasonable discretion. There seems to be, however, an opinion – especially amongst nominators – that holds are mandatory, which frequently results in bitching and moaning at GAR. Reviewers have to waste their time defending their decision and nominators waste time complaining instead of just fixing the article and re-nominating. I agree that holds are useful and have used them myself, but they would best be removed from the formal process and, perhaps, only retained as an unwritten courtesy. Second opinions are meaningless. I’ve seen them go over a month with no response. If you have a question, use common sense and ask it here on the talk page; it’s nonsense to have it formalized as a template and accompanying instructions. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that second opinion is more or less useless. However, I find on hold one of the most useful tools in reviewing GANs, and I know that other people do, too. So, I don't see the point in eliminating the useful tools, when they don't get in anyone's way, but rather make reviewing easier. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbola, in my experience, only one out of every ten unheld failed noms (that aren't quickfails) leads to "bitching and moaning at GAR" because there was no hold. The key for me is that in such unheld fails, I always explain why the hold was not appropriate and that it's a hell of a lot faster and less troublesome to simply address the problems and renominate rather than go to GAR. The conduct of reviewers (who didn't explain why a hold did or didn't happen, or those that give holds for ones that don't deserve one) is to blame for the expectation that a hold is mandatory, not the system. VanTucky 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your experiences differ from mine, VanTucky. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've identified, these "useful tools" have side effects that 1) chase away productive reviews, 2) divert reviewers' time from reviewing to defending and 3) distract nominators (i.e. authors) from doing what we're all really here to do - improve articles. Why does GAN need a formal process when the same effect could be achieved by leaving a message on the nominator's talk page saying, for example, "the review has identified some minor concerns, but will pass if the can be addressed in 7 days". That's just common courtesy; it doesn't need a formal process (which, again, creates superfluous instructions and has harmful side effects, negatively impacting would-be and existing reviewers). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could usefully drop 2nd opinion - if the concept is thought to fill a useful function, maybe we could post a list of experienced reviewers that have agreed to be contacted on their talk pages if someone wants a review looking over? (similar to the PR volunteers list). Something does need to give somewhere - part of the reason (other than an extremely busy RL recently) I don't review as many articles as I'd like is that it takes too damn long fiddling with templates and updating superfluous pages, and I can be more productive for the same amount of time elsewhere (such as copyediting and improving articles). I was hoping that we would see improvements from Gguy's proposals a while ago to drastically simplify the entire GA process... one template, auto-updating list pages, and reviewers get to spend their time actually reviewing ;) EyeSerene^TALK 22:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a single review template. It's just that none of our usual template masters have stepped up to the plate and made the Super Template (to coin a stupid phrase). VanTucky 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - it's beyond my ability unfortunately, and would need bot support. I think it's a great idea though: an editor leaves a "request for GA review" template on the article talk page, a bot adds the article to GAN, the reviewer updates the template when finished, GA and GAN get updated by the bot (and maybe even ArticleHistory too), and we lose the multiple page updates and much of the complexity that IMO are such a barrier to getting involved. I have a dream... ;) EyeSerene^TALK 22:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So can we find someone who knows about that? In the meantime, let's ground the dream. I agree that perhaps "under review" could be the default, meaning "oh hold", and removing "second opinion" to further simplify. I think the streamlining of the process outweighs the occasional use of the template (just ask another reviewer!) David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I'm inclined to work on such a bot; I've plenty of programming experience, but know nothing about wikibots specifically—just read through the wikispace bot pages and am wondering if I know even less now, but no matter. First step is to see if I can succeed at the basic tasks (e.g. logging in, fetching, editing); if/when I manage that, we can start working up some GA requirements.--jwanders^Talk 09:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds promising, if you don't mind having a go. I realise such a system would mean some fairly radical changes in the way GA is organised and would bring its own set of complications, but I really believe anything that simplifies the underlying processes can only be beneficial. As an added benefit (and more on-topic), we'd probably lose the on-hold and 2nd opinion templates in the process. I hasten to add this was not my idea originally, but when Gguy proposed this a while back there was a mixed response (including my initial scepticism). The reaction has been more positive this time though, so perhaps this is an idea whose time has finally come ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Geometry guy hath not said that the concepts of "On Hold" or "second Opinion Desired" are to be dropped; he said the templates are a pain. I agree. First, the "On Hold" template .. and here I'm talking about only the templates, not the underlying concept.. serve no purpose other than to discourage other eyes from looking at an article being reviewed ... No, I see nothing wrong with the idea of an article being on Hold; the template is what is redundant. It adds complexity and implicitly discourages other reviewers from chipping in. I oppose both of those dynamics.. the dynamic of adding more and more templates when we should have been adding fewer and fewer, and the dynamic of "One pair of eyes only" on a GA review, which is by far the heaviest knock on GA, and deservedly so... instead of a "Second Opinion" template we should be using messages on this particular Tallk page (not the article's talk)... messages like "hey I'm having probs with a review; a little help?" etc. So much more community oriented.. and so much easier.. than a template! BUT... that prob.. plus the steep learning curve at GA.. would be helped by Newbie training. GA is the point of entry for new reviewers.. they need to learn about WP:WIAGA as well as MOS and WIAFA and... so on. BUT.. I say drop as many templates as possible STARTING with 'Under Review' (the worst of the lot, imvso) and including 'On Hold' and 'Second Opinion', replacing the latter with timely, relevant, reduced-effort and increased-community-building messages here on this talk page ....Ling.Nut (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

section break

Let's focus on what the templates have to do in relation with GA's ultimate goal- to have a low-bureacratic way of vetting articles which meet certain qualities.

• In that vein, as well as the issues with backlogs, et al, the under review template is necessary. We should not discourage other people chipping in, as Ling points out, but at a bare minimum these articles need to be reviewed by at least one person, so the template serves a valuable fuction.
• Second opinion.... I also agree this is unneccesarry, as a talk page comment to another editor would serve the same result, reducing the instructions to a single line instead of complicated instructions.
• On hold- I believe this comes down to people who want the article to get improved no matter the time, and those who want to cast them aside for the sake of the speedy process ideal if they can't get their rear in gear. I agree we shouldn't put a "yeah, whenever you get around to it" label on reviewing/addressing concerns, but if individual users are paying attention to their nominations, this shouldn't be a concern. If anything, this would force some to be more stringent about failing articles, but once again if reviewers are clear about what needs to be changed, then that's not a major issue.
• Introducing people to ga... if we do simplify the process, I would support writing a page as an introduction to the standards and how to review in depth for the newbies among us. But cleaning up the process itself is the most important thing right now.
• Finally... perhaps the compromise between on hold and review is to have the review template act as chameleon? That is, leave the ga template on article talk alone, but update the review template with "this is on hold" or "user input requested" by simply toggling paremeters. That kind of coding, I may be able to do.

--Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that vein, here's a quick mockup of a consolidated template, currently with only one parameter: Leaving onhold blank leaves the regular message:

Review — This article is currently being reviewed (additional comments are welcome).

but {{User:David Fuchs/layout|onhold=yes}} gives you

Review — This article is currently being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). : This article is currently on hold.

The grammar, wording are all random and could be reworded, but just to give you an idea of what could be done. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound folksy, but gee whiz boy! I'd sure like that simple onhold= parameter, rather than a whole new template. You could also add a needhelp= parameter for requesting a 2nd opinion, eliminating that one too. VanTucky 23:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a step in the right direction. EyeSerene^TALK 00:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, baby steps are still steps. (Off topic: Fuchs is masculine - Der wohltemperierte Fuchs) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added in a rough 2nd opinion parameter now too. Feel free to mess with the template yourselves, I'm going to try and go more intricate so the text flows or only the current status is shown. (As for my tagline, I had it as "Das" since people were confused before where I was ripping it off from, but since someone is actually going to call me out on it I guess I should change it to grammatically correct version. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've updated the code:Now, If no special parameters are put in, then the default "under review" appears. If you put in either on hold/2nd opinion sections, then the message changes to those. I'll have to tweak it some more, but at least this proves we can use one template. (And I can make one by stealing code from {{cite web}}) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make one comment that was a little off the current discussion, but as for the GA bot, I suggest waiting until MediaWiki creates an edit function in the API, because right now the only way to do it is to manually recieve the HTML and all that. A few months and it will be easier to do. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ David Fuchs: Looks good. It still means a manual update by the reviewer each time something changes, but at least it cuts out all the copy/delete/paste business, having to skip up and down the page, and losing one's place. It will also hopefully mean we can simplify the instructions at the top of GAN a bit. Can we get some consensus on this, then maybe move it into template space and give it a trial run on GAN?

@ Parent5446: thanks for the info! We shouldn't let this die though, even if it does go on the back-burner for now... EyeSerene^TALK 12:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a baby step it is, but it is in the right direction. However, I'm concerned that it might break the operation of User:StatisticianBot, which updates the statistics at WP:GAN/R. I'll ask. Geometry guy 11:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. I've only reviewed the one article so far but having to skip up and down today to find the right template to mark it as on hold was a pain. I wonder if this could be done with the talk page template as well so that a "onhold=yes" changes the nomination tag to on hold. I guess that reviewers would need to remember to update the date though... Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see about drafting a replacement for the talk page template so it has the same parameters. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update so G.guy improved the template by making a single parameter, {{User:David Fuchs/layout|status=}}; the status can be changed to onhold or 2nd opinion to generate the proper messages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may or may not be an improvement, but I wanted to discourage multiple statuses, which would complicate matters rather than simplify them. Note that the status accepts upper and lower case, and a couple of variations, so I hope it would be easy to use without having to scan up the page to read the instructions.

I think a talk page template with a status parameter would be good idea. I suggest using {{GAN|status=}}, which is currently a redirect to {{GAnominee}}. Once GAN is up and running, we could turn around the redirect and make GAnominee point to it. Geometry guy 17:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Combined GAN template

Okay, I've drafted a combined GAN talk page template at {{GAN}}, and I think it is ready for road testing. I've made several other changes. First, I've copyedited the text in the various versions of the template. Some of this text was rather long before, and many editors don't like a lot of talk page template cruft. Second, I've eliminated mention of "pass" and "fail" in favour of "list or not" since I believe the pass/fail terminology generates misconceptions about the way GA works. Third, I've added a separate "on review" status. Finally, I've added a subtopic parameter.

Those who know me may be surprised by the last two changes, since they appear to add bureaucracy rather than remove it. Here are some explanations. At present there are four possible statuses for a GAN. I wish there were fewer, but there aren't, so we should be honest about it. The subtopic parameter is extra work for the nominator and provides a handy link for the reviewer to go directly to the correct section of WP:GAN, saving all that time scrolling around. Finally (and this, of course, is the real reason), providing both parameters means that all of the information about the article on WP:GAN is now stored in the template: this provides the possibility to generate WP:GAN automatically from the talk page information, so that it never needs to be edited again. Geometry guy 13:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It fits my bill, and I can't see any issues with it right now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental sciences is not listed and doesn't fit any of the existing headings because it is a cross-discipline between all five of the existing headings. Would anybody object to its addition in alphabetic order?

1. Biology and medicine
2. Chemistry and materials science
3. Environmental sciences
4. Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy
5. Meteorology and atmospheric sciences
6. Physics and astronomy

- Neparis (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would, sorry. Many articles are cross-disciplinary, and choices have to be made. Proliferating subtopics instead of making these hard choices is not the right way to proceed. If an environmental science article is not suitable for "Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy" or "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences", then I suggest filing it under "Geography" (a subtopic of "Geography and places"). Geometry guy 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Another option to consider for some articles in this field is "Engineering". Geometry guy 19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think filing everything under A (for "Article about...") would be simplest... EyeSerene^TALK 19:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing that GA needs right now is more categories. An 'Environmental sciences' category probably won't be used much, and most of the articles are interdisciplinary and fit fairly easily under one of the other subcategories. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Comics Guaranty LLC#Restoration and its reference #18. Is it acceptable in terms of GA? The source is a Comics Guaranty LLC forum, but the user quoted is the company president and head comics grader. So the question is 1: is the source acceptable in terms of GA quality, and if it is 2: is the reference formatted in a GA acceptable way? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That ref is fine. However, the article fails GA easily - disputed tag, citation need tags, etc. In fact, I'm going to fail it now.^{Oops, not actually a GA nom yet. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)} dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick! I guess it's a good thing it hasn't been nominated it yet. ;-) As long as I'm working on it, I'll address those points. Thanks for your help! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose replace the following items on the GAN page:

↓ Skip to nominations lists ↓

The oldest unreviewed good article nominations are: Wayside Theatre (talk | history | start review) • McLaren MCL60 (talk | history | start review) • Jews in the civil rights movement (talk | history | start review) • Jorge Choquetarqui (talk | history | start review) • Infant school (talk | history | start review)

The highest priority unreviewed good article nominations are: McLaren MCL60 • Jews in the civil rights movement • Infant school • Johannes van Damme • Jorge Sampaio

with the following template: {{User:David Fuchs/draft}} which looks like this:

The advantage is it combines elements and also adds an optional parameter, backlog, which if activated like {{User:David Fuchs/draft|backlog=yes}} makes:

It's minor, I know, but it helps consolidate the junk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Is there a defined point that this page either does or doesn't have a backlog? I suppose if we didn't have any articles waiting over 30 days for a review we wouldn't have a backlog? --Holderca1 ^talk 21:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno what qualifies, but I think it's based more on volume of articles awaiting review rather than dates. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. However, you need to explain how to remove the backlog notice. Also, the backlog notice could be combined with the rest of the template to save more space. Geometry guy 11:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How's it look now? By the way, thanks for improving my other template :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And done! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That rocks, Waterboy! I made one small change to it; it said the backlog "required experienced editors" which suddenly struck me as odd when we're trying to recruit new reviewer. It now says "requires willing reviewers. You can help!" --jwanders^Talk 08:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK it's a bit hypocritical of me to write this, since I can't do squat to help (no time)...

I don't think GA needs more essays designed to train newbies; I think GA needs more mentors. At a bare minimum, they should be trained on:

• Correctly handling the article hist template! Urgent! No longer needed; rmvd option to do this from the instructions on WP:GAN. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:WIAGA (with extra extra emphasis on WP:LEAD and with a conscious de-emphasis on WP:MOS nit-picks not included in WP:WIAGA).

.. so just make a list of those willing to act as mentors. You could even sort them by specialty(?)... The big question, of course, is "Who will mentor the mentors?". It's guaranteed that some who sign up to be mentors will actually need mentoring. I think all mentors shouuld monitor each other, very casually and collegially.. with the end-result that every person being trained would be paired with one mentor for a short while, but would be watched by one or more others, who could chip in.

Ling.Nut (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sign me up. I'm a good reviewer apparently. If we're going on specialties (heck, why not?) put me down for Music and Video Games, although I'm finding myself reviewing all over the place of late, which is good for everyone involved. :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good and I'd be happy to mentor. I tend to specialise in scientific articles. (I do have concerns about how ArticleHistory is being run, but understand how it's supposed to be done). To ensure experienced reviewers, GA sweeps are currently done by requested invitation only; might we unify this with "mentors" somehow? --jwanders^Talk 07:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I mentioned "specialty" I was unclear (and I apologize for that). I meant... who is a guru on image issues? Who on the Article Hist template? etc. And as for sweeps=mentors or whatever.. knock yourselves out. Y'all set it up however you like. I might also suggest that extremely polite inquiries be made to old-timers like... RelHistBuff? Homestarmy? LaraLove? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea from my trusty handsock, Ling, so I've set up a page at WP:Good article nominations/Mentors, with shortcut WP:GAN/M. Please add your name to the list with reviewing interests and/or areas of GA expertise. If enough people sign up, we can add a link to the GAN page, and probably also WP:Reviewing good articles. However, I do completely disagree with one thing: we should not be wasting time training editors how to use the article history! Article history is for bots and we should be discouraging human beings from using it. Use the GA templates instead: a bot can (and sometimes does) build article history from these templates. One day this will be fully automated. Geometry guy 10:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl! I propose removing the option in the intructions on WP:GAN to edit the article Hist. In fact, I'll just do it now. Y'all can revert if you choose. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falling over myself to support this! Not to get too high on my soapbox, but I can't understand why the ArticleHistory template is the only place on wikipedia that things must be done perfectly and comprehensively or not at all. What happened to the incremental improvement model?--jwanders^Talk 16:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea ;) It's implied in the blurb on GAN/M already, but with this in place would we still need '2nd opinion'? EyeSerene^TALK 21:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent). I think we no longer need the "2nd opinion" template. Can I get a 2nd opinion on that assertion, please? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that idea at all. Requesting a mentor and requesting a second opinion are quite different things. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename WP:Good article nominations/Mentors as WP:Good article nominations/Mentors and second Opinions, if it makes the cognitive association less odious to you. In practice, though, the concept is the same: One reviewer says, "I need help please." 14:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Above is the extremely short, interesting history of discussion on IP noms (no discussion at the wikiproject). There is no consensus. Can we have a discussion about this?

Some of the arguments against are quite bad. For instance I have my last three Special Contributions pages bookmarked to check articles and talk pages. And that's when I don't have a GA review pending. And article talk pages don't move either.
Conversely, the arguments for are good. Consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia (FA most pertinently) is in contrast to this page as it stands. IP editing is a foundation issue. This, as one editor notes in one of the above links, goes against what the wiki is all about. We should not be creating a hierarchy of editors. Openness and accessibility is important. And so on and so forth. This is the project you signed up for. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record; [6][7][8]. I don't really care, I just care about article quality. But I do suggest you register an account, 86.44.6.14, because there are many editors who couldn't give a rats about IPs. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of IP noms. Reviewers need to be registered for reasons of accountability, but I don't see the need for nominators to be registered: GA evaluates the article, not the nominator. Geometry guy 10:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see the problem. If an article is not up to scratch then it would be failed. If an article is just spam and similar, this could just get speedied (and why would they want to nominate it if they are trying to go 'under the radar'). Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 10:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think communication is the only real issue here; it's not always easy to contact anon editors (shared IPs, dynamic IPs etc) - useful when following up holds or responding to personal comments. Unfortunately having an account means you're taken more seriously, but that's a Wikipedia-wide issue that goes well beyond GAN. Other than communication, I've no serious objections. EyeSerene^TALK 11:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) I have a problem with reviews by IPs. How do i know the reviewer isn't a major contributor? the same problem exists for socks, but pointing to one prob to justify another doesn't wash as an argument. the sock problem is merely more difficult to spot; that doesn't mean it justifies the IP reviewer problem. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]