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.

The GA Reviewer for Miguel Ángel Asturias has left - see Talk:Miguel Ángel Asturias#GA Reviewer. Anyone want to take over? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that means they've left; no one took the responsibility from them, after all. Perhaps they just need a reminder that either it's still in their hands or they should request a second opinion with the proper template on the GAN page. Have you tried contacting them on their talk page? María (habla conmigo) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea about the second opinion. Obvious. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DM is out a bit so I'll ask somebody to re-evaluate "Confessions Part II" he recently put on hold. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another: Positive Black Soul. --Kakofonous (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, both are  Done. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently 24: The Game and Battle of Gettysburg, First Day were nominated (by the same editor, kaypoh). However, both are already A-class articles. When I inguired on the talk page of 24: The Game, I was told that an article could be a GA and A-class article at the same time. Is that true?

It doesn't seem too logical to me, as an A-class article is supposed to be judged with higher standards than a GA article. Noble Story (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Stub, Start, B, GA, A, FA-Class system is a rating system run by individual WikiProjects. There is no requirement that different WikiProjects should give an article the same rating and WikiProjects have their own schemes for designating articles as A-Class: typically these schemes concentrate on the quality of the content, so articles can be A-Class without being good articles. Similarly GA-Class is a WikiProject rating which just happens to coincide most of the time with whether the article is a good article or not. Please try to discourage editors from using "GA-Class" as a synonym for good article; this will help to avoid this confusion arising. The two concepts are logically distinct, and sometimes differ in practice. Geometry guy 15:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles at WP:MILHIST are frequently both GAs and A-Class at the same time, but they also usually become FAs rather quickly as well. For example, here are two GAs under WP:MARITIME which are also A-Class: Benjamin Franklin Tilley and USS Siboney (ID-2999). -MBK₀₀₄ 21:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the other wikiprojects that I participate in, I usually treat A-class as sort of a GA+ rating. I think that all A-class articles should meet, at a minimum, the GA criteria, and then go above and beyond, providing additional details and fulfilling a more subject area based assessment. They should mostly be meeting the FA criteria as well, but obviously don't have to meet all of them. As such, I don't have a problem with articles being listed as GA and also assessed as A-class by one of their wikiprojects. But I do have a problem with A-class assessments on articles that do not meet the GA criteria and are not listed at WP:GA. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I GA nom'ed Jack the Ripper purely 'cause it was listed as A-class and there was no way it could meet GA criteria. It failed and is now more reasonably a B-Class. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change WikiProject A-Class ratings to B for failed GAs. This is a matter for the WikiProject: leave a note on the WikiProject talk page. A better mental picture (although this is still a simplification, for the reasons I mentioned above) for the structure of article assessment is:

Stub - Start - B - A
               |   |
               GA- FA

For many WikiProjects, A-Class is a content decision, based on comprehensiveness: it does not cover minutiae of presentation. It is not our job at GA to tell WikiProjects how to do their job. Geometry guy 19:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with that. In just the same way that it's not for a GA reviewer to re-assess an article's project allocated B-class to GA if (s)he decides to list it. That's down to how each project interprets its own GA assessment. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So which project takes precedence when there are four or five banner tags on the talk page? Seriously, other than military history and maybe film, which projects have active assessment 'departments'. Nine out of ten times, A-class is a vanity class given by a contributing editor. And, quite often that contributing editor is long gone. In the case of Jack the Ripper, it seems the active contributors agreed with the down grade. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No project "takes precedence", as Geometry Guy's little graphic was meant to demonstrate. The GA process has absolutely nothing to do with whatever any project may choose to call GA, other than having (perhaps unhelpfully) the same name. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each individual WikiProject banner is the responsibility of the WikiProject which created it. Anyone can change any banner, but WikiProject assessments are reached by consensus of those interested in the article from the point of view of the WikiProject. It is completely reasonable for different WikiProjects to have different assessments for the same article (see e.g. Talk:John von Neumann, which is great as a Game theory article, not comprehensive as a mathematics article, and needing further work as a biography). Remember: WikiProject assessments are for editors, not readers; they help editors keep track of and improve article quality. Geometry guy 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? It doesn't seem to of been reviewed properly to me. D.M.N. (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty awful: half of it is references! I suggest you delist it following the delisting guidelines: in the case of this article, criterion 3(a) (broadness) clearly fails because this biographical article only discusses the subject's sporting career. If you run into problems delisting the article, use WP:GAR. Geometry guy 21:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with this article being "pretty awful". I find that insulting to the work I placed into it and as being very unfair. Also, there are plenty of football GAs which do not cover aspects of the subject not related to their sporting career, with an example including the newly-promoted Michael Symes. The criteria itself states "articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic". Mattythewhite (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cite is possibly worse. I suspect these articles were passed because they meet WP:V. However, GA is not a citation check. WP:V is an absolute policy requirement, which all articles must meet. GA is a broad assessment in terms of the good article criteria. This may have been misunderstood in the past, and such misunderstandings may continue. Your work is great, and it is no insult to it that it does not currently meet the good article criteria. Good luck improving the article further. Geometry guy 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it failed GA I find insulting, but the manner in which you described it. I mean, the article describes the whole career of Leo Fortune-West to a fairly comprehensive degree, I fail to see how it makes it "pretty awful". As you implied, it's not particularly long, but I don't believe that is a requirement of GA. Just that it "addresses the major aspects of the topic", which I believe it is successful in. This goes into further detail by stating "articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic", meaning it is not a necessity for it to go into detail on his non-sporting career. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my choice of words. Geometry guy 09:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not reviewed properly at all and clearly fails GA. I was tempted to just revert it, but instead have delisted and left a note about the improper review on the talk page. Collectonian (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should give a proper review so Mattybywhite knows what he must do to improve the article so it can be a GA next time. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its already been delisted. I'd recommend they start with a peer review before renominating it. Collectonian (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, sorry about that review. I haven't done to many reviews yet, and I guess I need to re-read the criteria, because after a second look, I see that this article should not have passed the way I passed it. I apologize for this. iMatthew 2008 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much. After this baptism by fire, you will be one of GA's best reviewers, I am sure! Good luck! Geometry guy 22:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had similar concerns about the GA review of Kenwyne Jones and put that up for GAR, but it's been passed. At least Jones' article does go into some of his background.

I have to agree with Mattythewhite and agree with some of Geometry Guy's wording. "Pretty awful" doesn't really beat around the bush. It's a very damming verdict even if you didn't quite mean to use those words. Peanut4 (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But still, I'm not quite sure how it fails criterion 3. It reads "addresses the major aspects of the topic", which it has done by documenting his sporting career. It also reads "articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic", telling that it is not necessary for it to detail his non-sporting career. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'm just starting to review articles, and I see that this is not the way to do it. I've re-read the GA criteria, and I will review another article in the near future. iMatthew 2008 17:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not commenting on your reviweing, I'm just trying to find out how it exactly fails GA. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious shortcomings are with respect to criteria 1a and 3a. For instance: "He again gained with the promotion with the side in 2002–03 after they won the play-offs"; "He was to be offered a new deal in April and finished the season with seven goals in 28 appearances." So far as 3a is concerned, it is difficult to argue that a biography that doesn't include any biographical detail meets the broadness requirement. I'd suggest peer review and/or a request to the League of Copyeditors as the next step for this article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this situation and thought I would bring it up here for broader input (am also notifying the editor in question). Noble Story does GA reviews in User:Noble Story/sandbox, with just a link to the sandbox from the article talk page. When the GA review is done, the sandbox is cleared and used for the next review(s), so that someone looking for the GA review details would have to dig through the sandbox history. This defeats the purpose of having the GA review on the article talk page. Such reviews are helpful for future editors and for things like FAC.

Specific example: Stuart McCall is a GA, but on Talk:Stuart McCall there is a very minimal review and a link to the sandbox. This was blanked here diff to add the review for History of Bradford City A.F.C., which is also now gone.

I also wonder about the level of changes being asked for relative to GA criteria. While it is clear Noble Story is a careful, thorough and detailed reviewer, I think this practice of doing reviews in the sandbox has to stop. I also think the complete reviews have to be "dug up" and put in their article talk pages. Looks like there are 11 articles to date [[1]].

I also think the directions need to be made more explicit as to reviews being done in the article talk page only. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you said. I brought this up with NS in regards to Portland Trail Blazers, but did not pursue it too hard. But I do think it should be made clear that reviews need to be made on the talk page where they are prominent and easy to find, both during and after the fact. -Pete (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, that review was very thorough, and will serve as a great guide to improving the article even if the article doesn't pass. -Pete (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pete. My own requests are the two above, Stuart McCall and History of Bradford City A.F.C. The reviews were very thorough and an enormous help in making great strides forward with the articles. I'm not sure if they'd be too long to add to the talk page. Just an after thought, would it not be possible to add a link to the old page on the Sandbox when passing or failing the GA? Peanut4 (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the thoroughness or helpfulness of the reviews, but they need to be on the article talk page, then if too large they can be archived as a talk page archive so they are easily accessible. They should be one click away, not a long hunt through the sandbox history - it took me a good 5 minutes to find the final version of the Stuart McCall review, which is useless for future reference. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The reviews need to be properly placed on the article talk page per the GA review instructions. The length of them should not be a deterrent in any way, shape, or form. If the article's talk page is bloated, add an archiver, archive the older stuff, the post the review. Collectonian (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, GA reviews should not be placed in sandboxes, but this raises a more general issue (see below). Geometry guy 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent GA reviews

The importance of making GA reviews easily available to future reviewers and editors has been pointed out above. However, the current GA practice of storing reviews on article talk pages is not ideal in this respect, because talk pages get archived. In particular, for high traffic articles, the talk page is often archived automatically on a timescale of 1 month or less. This causes numerous problems finding old GA reviews, as links are often broken and the review isn't a click away, because there are multiple archive pages.

It might be better to store GA reviews in a permanent place (e.g., a talk subpage such as [[Talk:Stuart McCall/GA2]] for the second GA review of Stuart McCall) so that they can easily be found at any later date. While the review is active, it can, of course be transcluded onto the talk page, just as peer reviews are listed on the peer review page. After the review, a link can be left, but it will be a permanent link. This approach might appeal to User:Noble Story as well. What do others think? Geometry guy 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could support an idea like that, particularly since it would be closer to what is done with peer reviews and FAs. I've always wondered why GA goes on the talk page instead of using similar processes to those two. Collectonian (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a very good idea. I found Noble Story's review extremely useful but also found it easier to be on his Sandbox rather than the McCall talk page. The same for the History article. Peanut4 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea a lot love this idea - it would also save playing edit history archeologist in the talk page archives ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always supported the idea of having GA reviews on the talk page because I believe that it encourages the participation of those editors who may not be inclined to look at the "please leave comments" link at the top of the talk page. On the other hand, I agree that having to excavate for old GA reviews is a pita. So if transclusion can serve both aims, then fine, let's do it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough a review I am undertaking at the moment led to a small discussion on the editors talk page. This I copied this back into the article's talk page Talk:History of timekeeping devices so that the process of the GA was understandable to others. I do like the idea of a GA subpage as long as it is transcluded onto the talk page, a {{box}} with clear instructions as to what is going on and a {{box}} at the end saying where the archived GA process is. Brilliant idea. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this edit fly by not a half hour ago and couldn't help but think that it could serve as a sufficient example. —Rob (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually feel that review offers the best option: archive the GAN for ArticleHistory et al after the GA has passed/failed. That solves worry about people seeing the review and contributing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I seem to be the center of this debate, I might as well explain myself. I originally used my sandbox for testing and/or previewing major edits. However, it eventually morphed into a place for my review of GANs. I wanted to use them that way because my reviews are often very long (like this one). As as I side note, I do keep a list of my reviews, and there I have a link to all my reviews. However, I see that it is best to put it the review the talk page. So, my apologies for those who were put out by my methods.

By the way, are you saying I should create a page like this, to keep reviews for future articles I review? Noble Story (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Noble -- no need to be sorry! I think that WP:BOLD requires us to do stuff in the best way we can think of. When we need to discuss it and modify it, we do. But I for one don't think you did anything "wrong," even though I think there are better ways to do it.

My reading of the above is this:

• Include reviews on talk pages, has strong consensus and should be done.
• Proposal for a standard/permanent link like Talk:Blabla/GAR sounds good, but is still under discussion.

-Pete (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking it over, I was wondering if this could be viable. After reviewing the article (in this case failing it), I include a note at the end of the page to showing linking to the archived version of my review on my sandbox. That way the review will always be there, and the link will be on the talk page, easily accessible for anyone who wants to look over the review. Noble Story (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think creating a third talk space for GA is viable. Either use the regular talk page or have a completely separate space like FA. Creating a special GA review space is adding more bureaucracy to the system, not simplifying it. Also, using the talk page is extremely convenient for both reviewers and nominators. Hardly anyone goes way back in the history digging for GA reviews years or months old anyway. The problem with the reviews that started this discussion was that the review existed permanently nowhere except in the history of a user sandbox. So long as talk pages and archives stay permanent, and they always do, it's not a problem. Creating a new GA review space is using a cannon to kill a gnat. VanTucky 03:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I get your reasoning. However, I would think that an old version of an article would exist just as much as an article in an archive. They are both there, after all, and they won't be deleted. I don't know if my reasoning is correct, but that's what I'm thinking. Noble Story (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is that each GA review would have its own page, exactly like FAC and peer review. It doesn't matter where this page is (it could be a Talk subpage or a Wikipedia subpage), as long as it is permanent and easy to find. Geometry guy 07:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a problem with this, as long as while each review is 'live' it can be found in full on the article talk page and edited from there. Conducting the review on the talk page, as we do at present, seems simpler to me than creating and transcluding a separate page, but I've no real preference. Certainly archiving the review somewhere permanent would have the advantage that the AH template can then be linked properly too. EyeSerene^talk 07:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with VanTucky, plus new reviewers might not understand or skip this new step and we would end up having reviews everywhere. It's really not that hard to find archived reviews besides most articles don't even have archives. I don't know, changing the whole process to spare a few clicks seems pretty silly.--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 09:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly see the drawbacks as well as the benefits. However, the former can be minimized: the dedicated page for an article's GA review would be set-up by the nominator, in exactly the same way as it is set-up for peer reviews. So, no extra work for reviewers. As EyeSerene suggests, this dedicated page would be transcluded live and in full onto the talk page, so it could be edited easily as now using the edit link for the section on the talk page.

It isn't just about a few clicks, it is about accountability: it is not unheard of for articles to be made GAs without a proper review; we get one every couple of months at WP:GAR and it takes some work to spot them, so I am sure we miss many more. A permanent link to each GA review would help to eliminate this problem. Geometry guy 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]