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 – February 2008 February 2008 – May 2008 May 2008 – September 2008 October 2008 –

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

Featured content dispatch workshop

2014 Oct 1: Let's get serious about plagiarism 2013 Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look? 2010 Nov 15: A guide to the Good Article Review Process Oct 18: Common issues seen in Peer review Oct 11: Editing tools, part 3 Sep 20: Editing tools, part 2 Sep 6: Editing tools, part 1 Mar 15: GA Sweeps end Feb 8: Content reviewers and standards 2009 Nov 2: Inner German border Oct 12: Sounds May 11: WP Birds May 4: Featured lists Apr 20: Valued pictures Apr 13: Plagiarism Apr 6: New FAC/FAR nominations Mar 16: New FAC/FAR delegates Mar 9: 100 Featured sounds Mar 2: WP Ships FT and GT Feb 23: 100 FS approaches Feb 16: How busy was 2008? Feb 8: April Fools 2009 Jan 31: In the News Jan 24: Reviewing featured picture candidates Jan 17: FA writers—the 2008 leaders Jan 10: December themed page Jan 3: Featured list writers 2008 Nov 24: Featured article writers Nov 10: Historic election on Main Page Nov 8: Halloween Main Page contest Oct 13: Latest on featured articles Oct 6: Matthewedwards interview Sep 22: Reviewing non-free images Sep 15: Interview with Ruhrfisch Sep 8: Style guide and policy changes, August Sep 1: Featured topics Aug 25: Interview with Mav Aug 18: Choosing Today's Featured Article Aug 11: Reviewing free images Aug 9 (late): Style guide and policy changes, July Jul 28: Find reliable sources online Jul 21: History of the FA process Jul 14: Rick Block interview Jul 7: Style guide and policy changes for June Jun 30: Sources in biology and medicine Jun 23 (26): Reliable sources Jun 16 (23): Assessment scale Jun 9: Main page day Jun 2: Styleguide and policy changes, April and May May 26: Featured sounds May 19: Good article milestone May 12: Changes at Featured lists May 9 (late): FC from schools and universities May 2 (late): Did You Know Apr 21: Styleguide and policy changes Apr 14: FA milestone Apr 7: Reviewers achieving excellence Mar 31: Featured content overview Mar 24: Taming talk page clutter Mar 17: Changes at peer review Mar 13 (late): Vintage image restoration Mar 3: April Fools mainpage Feb 25: Snapshot of FA categories Feb 18: FA promotion despite adversity Feb 11: Great saves at FAR Feb 4: New methods to find FACs Jan 28: Banner year for Featured articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This was made by finding articles linked to GAN and comparing it to articles in the Cleanup category. There are a couple false positives; that could be easily fixed by comparing to Category:Good article nominees instead (which is what I should have done). However, even the less-accurate method reduces search time down to a couple minutes, mainly spent waiting for AWB to crunch through the lists.

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

Wow, I thought it would be thousands long. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh Peregrine, we're talking about GA nominations, not those that have already passed :) Gary King (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's only cleanup; I dunno if it includes disputed, POV, etc. There's probably a master categor for all such problems...?

BUT while we're at it, I found article that are NOT ISTED at GAN but have the GAN template on their talk:

• ABC (medicine)
• American crocodile
• Arnold Schwarzenegger
• Chemetco
• Christmas in the post-War United States
• Jan Kaplický
• Medical director
• Superman Returns
• The Nightingale
• Triage
• Two probs to be investigated....Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need? Oh well, good try. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superman Returns is my fault - I failed it but left loose ends in the "paperwork" -sorry! At least it helped to show the usefulness of these search tools. --Philcha (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to do this for current GAs? That might give some indications of the number that need urgent attention.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Doing it for GAs would be easy, but I have to go to church. Back in a few hours. Don't you have WP:AWB? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used to, but found it really distracting so turned it off.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jan Kaplický was my fault. I failed it but neglected to change the talk page template. I have fixed that now. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! Kohlberg Kravis Roberts was recently passed as a GA. I took a quick look at this article and saw quite a few things that would have made me think exactly the opposite - short lead, major lack of citations, etc. Am I being too picky, or should I take this to GAR? Just wanting to grab a few opinions before I decide which way to jump... Dana boomer (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new around here, but I wouldn't have passed it with that lead, and a quick look at a section "RJR Nabisco and the Barbarians at the Gate" shows it has many dollar values and dates being given that need specific citations (at least page numbers of the book being discussed). Sasata (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to say the same thing. Swathes uncited, improperly formatted references, poor lead - list goes on. Needs an urgent GAR and a note on the reviewers talk page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number or density of citations doesn't matter per se, but here there many many sentences screaming for citation, such as "KKR closed out the 1970s completing the public-to-private buyout of Houdaille Industries in 1979, probably the largest take-private of a public company to that point." According to whom? In addition to the above issues, the prose is unencyclopedic, reading in places like a press release. The "Investment strategy" section is particularly weak, describing what the company "will" or "often" does. Geometry guy 13:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Apollo Management, another nomination from User:Urbanrenewal, is on hold. There were a fair number of style improvements necessary, and also the lead was rather short. With only a quick glance at Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, I would have though it needed similar improvements. However, Urbanrenewal is an amazing guy at making quick improvements to articles, so I wonder if it could be done 'off the record'. Then again, perhaps GAR is the way to go... Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be perfect for a individual GAR (aiming for a "keep" outcome, if what you say pans out). I don't mind doing it if Dana boomer (or someone else) doesn't. It is better to have a thorough review in the article history (the GAN was indeed a "quick pit stop"!). Geometry guy 13:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everyone, thanks for the comments. I'll open an individual GAR on the article in a few minutes - anyone else who would like to is, as always, welcome to comment there. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've opened the individual GAR, posted my comments, and dropped a note on the original reviewer's talk page. As I said above, please feel free to comment on the GAR for anything that I may have missed. Dana boomer (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently reviewing the article about cricket player Dick Pollard. Among the usual things to fix, the concern is that the article, as you can see, says nothing about his personal life. When I raised it on the review page, the nominator said that "This kind of information is pretty much unavailable." I sympathize, as I know in other articles there a simply a dearth of references talking about a person's personal life. However, leaving something like that out for this article means leaving out a huge part of his life, and I do not believe that satisfies the requirement to be broad in coverage. So, can I have anyone else's opinion? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 05:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. A biographical article needs to cover both the subject's personal and public life to be broad. Otto4711 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree too. I'm more than a bit surprised as well that no date is given for his death in 1985. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I agree to some degree, I enjoy playing devil's advocate: what about historical figures (such as notable folk from Medieval England or Ancient Greece) about whom nothing may be known of their personal life? If I were to rewrite Sappho tomorrow -- very tempting -- and bring it to GAC, should it be held to such standards? Of course, contemporary people typically have better coverage due to the media machine(s), but that may not be the case. I had such a time trying to find something, anything on Robert Sterling Yard (GA, FA) other than his workaholic tendencies. María (habla conmigo) 21:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Short answer: horses for courses. It's rather unlikely that any further information will come to light concerning Plato's life for instance, but someone who died in 1985? It's pretty hard to believe that nothing was ever published about his personal life, wouldn't you agree? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you're saying that an article that is (theoretically) otherwise inclusive should be shortlisted for GA until a reliable, tell-all biography is published, goodness knows when? If so, then no, I can't say I agree. I think an article that is "broad" in its coverage is all we can ask. To me, "broad" does not mean "everything" -- GAs don't have to be comprehensive like FAs, they just have to cover the "main aspects of the topic". María (habla conmigo) 21:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The guideline touches on the topic a bit; but yeah, when approaching articles it's practical to tailor that approach. –Whitehorse1 21:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What is this "theory" of which you speak? I'm simply suggesting that a different interpretation of "broad" has to be applied to those who died in 348 BC from that applied to those who died in 1985. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this discussion misses the point. I agree that the article should refer to family issues, but they are not the "main aspect" of the subject according to the GA criteria. Brief reference to marriage and/or children would probably suffice. If the nominator can't find this information for a notable subject, they probably haven't tried hard enough.

However this is not the main issue: the article relies almost entirely on primary source material recorded at www.cricketarchive.com, yet it engages in analysis. Unsourced analysis is original research (by synthesis). Two examples:

• Injuries to Sibbles and to Frank Booth gave Pollard even greater opportunity in 1935, and he played in 23 Championship matches and was awarded his county cap.[8] Whose analysis is this? The source presents only the data.
• Pollard was out of the reckoning for Test places in the hot summer of 1947 but responded with one of his best county seasons. For Lancashire in Championship matches, he took 131 wickets, with the next best total being 74. In all matches, he took 144 wickets at an average just below 20 runs per wicket, the second best figures of his career.[11] The source is just raw data. Geometry guy 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I was just responding to what I perceived to be the general point behind the question. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I believe are more important sources in the article than cricketarchive are the Wisden almanacs which usually give the kind of analysis seen in the article. I believe the problem arises from the sources not being duplicated through the article enough. I cannot state this with authority however, as User:Johnlp is responsible for most of the content of the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually synthesis, the prose reports just haven't been attached. CA isn't a primary source though, they weren't the official record-keeper for the match. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is primary source material: raw data. A copy of raw data is still a primary source. Geometry guy 08:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I will not longer being doing any GA reviews, I am requesting that someone take over three GAR that I have started but can not finish.

• American popular music - I did not start a formal GAR yet but I notified them on the talk page that the references are messed up in the article in a way I cannot figure out. Perhaps someone here can figure out the problem. Also, the issue of the article's organization needs to be addressed. See Talk:American_popular_music#References.2Fnotes_need_cleanup
• 1918 flu pandemic - Just begun and not completed Talk:1918 flu pandemic/GA1
• Green marketing - Talk:Green marketing/GA1

If no one wants to complete there, perhaps there is a way of just ending them, or discontinuing them, as is. I cannot work on them further.

I have completed approximately 150 GA reviews in the last few months and have immensely enjoyed my interactions with the article editors. I am deeply appreciative of my opportunity to work with them. As I have seen them grow, I know that they will continue to contribute in the future. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that, and thanks for doing those GA reviews. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]