I was just wondering, there's an article that I reviewed a few weeks ago. I failed it then, and the user has recently re-nominated it then (It has definitely been improved from my last review.) Would I be able to review the article again, or is it considered in bad taste that someone who reviewed an article originally would review it a second time? Thanks! CarpetCrawler (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with reviewing it again, unless you consider yourself to be unfairly biased for or against it, then in that case be smart and don't review it. I've reviewed the same article more than once before; failing it the first time, then passing the second after I noticed significant improvements. Gary King (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I don't consider myself biased towards the article at all, really. I'll go ahead and review it. If the nominator objects, I could always withdraw my review and let someone else take it. CarpetCrawler (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Rereviewing is fine: indeed I would encourage it. The main independence criterion is that you have not contributed significantly to the article prior to this review. Geometry guy 22:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that the nominator was unhappy with your review, I don't think you should review it again. If you have any doubts, let the nominator make the decision. (This isn't policy, just my idea of the right way to handle it.) Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Johnny Kitagawa/GA1. Would appreciate a second reviewer's input on this one. Cirt (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The bot has not run three nights in a row. Last night I complained at User talk:StatisticianBot and User talk:Dvandersluis.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Dvandersluis (talk · contribs) has made no edits since acknowledging my complaint. No one seems to be working on the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's volunteer labor, so we take what we can get. If they don't come back, we can make a bot request, but I think they'll be back. A couple days isn't much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The date linking and formatting poll is now open. All users are invited to participate. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject South Park participants have started a page at WP:SOUTHPARK/TOPIC to organize featured topic drive collaborations. The primary goal is to improve the quality of articles about South Park episodes, with the ultimate end goal of getting sets of episodes by season to Good Topic or even Featured Topic status. We are starting off by focusing on Season 1, to get it to Good Topic status, see Wikipedia:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive/season 1. Any help is appreciated, and feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Park/Featured topic Drive. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Giggs for Temporary (talk · contribs) nominates 2009 Australian Grand Prix for GA status here, then proceeds to review it. I don't think this is allowed, is it? D.M.N. (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No. It is a poor nomination at best, but if the review page is to be believed it is also a poor review. Apterygial 13:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Per #1, bullet point b under "how to review an article": "You cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, nor can you review an article if you are the nominator". Dr. Cash (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone pick up the GA review on Nancy Drew? The reviewer, User:ItsLassieTime, has been blocked for a month for sockpuppetry, leaving it in limbo. Talk:Nancy Drew/GA1. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. Ricardiana has been undertaken a determined effort and I've tried to help out a little here too. It would be a shame for Ricardiana's work to be forestalled due to someone else doing something wrong. Any help would indeed be appreciatd. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:Hamiltonstone has picked it up. Glad to see :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been working a bit on Castiel (Supernatural), and I'm not totally satisfied with putting the in-universe info in a section titled "Character background". I looked at Wikipedia:Good_articles#Fictional_characters_and_technologies for ideas, and there seems to be about as many ways to name sections as there are articles. Does anyone know of a standarized naming scheme? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think each WikiProject has its own style guide for characters. — Deckiller 03:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewing Paulos Faraj Rahho, and as I look more closely at the sources, I'm starting to see a few problems. In particular, it appears that the editors of the article have lifted material verbatim from the articles that are being used as sources and cited it, but failed to include quotation marks. In other cases there have been incomplete paraphrases, where part of the quote has been changed, but the remainder of it is the language from the original source- again, without quotation marks. My understanding of general practice in terms of plagiarism is that you need to either 1) quote the source directly, with quotation marks, or 2) perform a complete paraphrase that recycles neither the vocabulary nor the sentence structure of the original source (within common sense boundaries). I've added quotes around the problem sentences- in part to keep track of them- but I'm not sure how satisfactory a solution is in terms of readability. Any thoughts on what effect this should have on the GA assessment? -Clay Collier (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FCDW/Plagiarism. This might help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. For some reason, I had some trouble locating Wikipedia:Plagiarism on my own, but I'm not sure if that's brain failure on my part or owing to the fact that it doesn't seem to be linked from other places as prominently as copyright and other common issues. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been manually updating the backlog list as it appears that there is no bot doing this. If others feel I have got it wrong, please feel free to revert. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have just written a small replacement for the GA bot, for as long as it doesn't run. It only does that general statistics, not the nominations in detail, but I hope it helps. The log is, for now, at User:Noble Story/sandbox2. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 03:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've recently finished developing an article, and was thinking of taking it to the next step, however it's an article on an unreleased book (released in November). Would people with any experience with the GA process know if this stood a chance at GA, other issues aside? I know "stability" is an issue, but it doesn't specify if future articles apply. Rehevkor ✉ 00:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think stability is a big issue, and the book probably would need a critical reception/review section. Then again, I've never reviewed book articles, so I could be wrong. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 00:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking A Memory of Light here? If so then nominating it for GA would be very premature, the article itself states that the plot isn't known yet and of course there's no reception information to add either. With both of those missing the article's nowhere near comprehensive, so can't be judged. Someoneanother 01:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I just think it's a good article, as comprehensive as it can be right now, and want to some how elevate it. I'll not attempt a GA right now then Rehevkor ✉ 02:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a good article, very nicely laid out and referenced, it's just not complete enough to pass the Good Article criteria. That's not about quality, just the lack of info which is currently impossible to obtain. As soon as that info becomes available it can be slotted in and away it goes. Someoneanother 02:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am reviewing Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite and notice that the review is Talk:Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite/GA2. However, there is no Talk:Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite/GA1. How can this be located, as presumably there was a prior review? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You could move the GA2 page to the GA1 location and delete the other one. That would solve the problem, I think, if no other review actually ever took place. If you need an admin, I'll do it if nobody has a better solution and doing it wouldn't create any new problems. I'll wait, though, until we are 100% sure a prior review never took place. I did look through some of the links and never saw one. Nikki♥311 16:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would someone care to take this one on? It was nominated back on February 24, and then a reviewer finally picked it up a month ago on March 13, but didn't do any actualy reviewing. Today, the reviewer bailed. Anyone in need of a charity case? ;) BOZ (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the review page, the reviewer who signed to review (to-day) added the checklist to-day. It was another user who bailed becuase of a broken computer. I don't now the reviewer's style, but I've sometimes drafted review in user space first, so I'd give it a couple of days before getting alarmed. --Philcha (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone else grabbed it (apparently without seeing my note here!) so all is well. :) BOZ (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes review in progress. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors here might be interested in the recently-published dispatch on plagiarism. Awadewit (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at November 15, 2008 Carolinas tornado outbreak with a view to starting a review. The article has a merge template. Should this invalidate the nomination? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems someone brought it up, and then dropped it after a reply. I would suggest you ask the nominator about it again. In any case, this article seems more like a list than an article. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 13:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just a little concerned that reviews such as this, made by user with an experience of just over three weeks and a talk page like this are not of the standard expected for GAs. The system is open enough to abuse as it is, but when reviews are as poor quality as that, who knows what kind of articles are being passed for GA? Majorly talk 19:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Majorly. Knowing the nominator personally, helping them with the article, and knowing how much work and effort the nominator went through to put that article into GAN quality, the nominator, Legolas, would be very disappointed with that review, even though the reviewer passed the article. I am all for removing the review, putting the article back into the nominations page (With the date that it was nominated originally added to it,) and having someone else review it, and I'm sure Legolas would agree with me. :) Also, we should send the user a message, explaining to them the GA criteria, and how to review articles. Let's all make sure to assume good faith! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 19:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The GA system depends crucially on the fact that one review is not the end of the story. Articles can be reassessed, delisted, renominated etc. very easily. For this to work, reviewers need to take action when they see an inadequate review like this one. An individual reassessment would be fine, especially if the outcome were a thorough review, improvements to the article, and endorsement of GA status! Alternatively, if no uninvolved reviewers are interested in reassessing it, it can be nominated for community reassessment by anyone. Geometry guy 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just and FYI though, the user who nominated the article is going to be away until Monday, so let's wait until then before we do anything like re-assess the review. And also, I am all for anyone reviewing the articles that are nominated on Wikipedia. However, from the looks of the review, the reviewer obviously does not understand the good article criteria in any way, and has obviously not looked at the rules of what a GA is. Take a look at an article they nominated, "Jack & Diane". I feel that since the user obviously does not understand the GA critera, the review should be considered invalid, and the user should be given a friendly message telling them how to review an article, and what makes a GA a GA. :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with the comments on Jack & Diane, i.e. it is not GA material; but Open Your Heart (Madonna song) appears, without having looked at it in detail, to be at or about GA-level. I'd be hesistant to withdraw the GA from Open Your Heart (Madonna song) just because the reviewer did an incompetent review. It would be fairer to leave it at GA-class for present and for the article to be reviewed by another (competent) reviewer, as per comments by Geometry guy. If appropriate, the article could be put On Hold for improvements.Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, sounds like a good compromise. However, I still feel that the user should be given a friendly message telling them how the criteria works. :) Also, since I was a contributor to the Madonna article, I guess if someone else wants to take a look at it, and has any concerns, they could send me a note and I'll see what I can do. The only problem is that the nominator, Legolas, is away until Monday, so big edits I wouldn't be able to really do... CarpetCrawler^{message me} 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

By all means send a friendly message to the reviewer and let's hope the leason is learnt; however that is not the only inadequate review that I have seen. Fortunately no "good" articles have been failed by those reviewers; but some inadeqate ones may have been passed. I'm happy to rereview it, but as I have three reviews on the go at the moment, I'm unlikely to start before Monday; but as above, it does not appear (on a cursory scan) to have any obvious failings. If anyone else does it before me, that's OK as well.Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's (Monday) when Legolas returns, so if anyone has any big large things that need to be improved, they can wait until then. If it's small things, then I can surely handle it. :) 20:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Thanks for all your comments but I simply cannot accept a review such as has been done for OYH. This is completely inadequate and by an editor with no clue of GA standards. I have removed the GA tag and renominated the article again. I want a fair review and then a pass/fail. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be removed, as the bid has yet to be accepted or rejected. Am I right in thinking this? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

By my way of thinking, it cannot possibly be considered comprehensive, as it is an ongoing event with a definite endpoint. That might also mean that, by definition, it is unstable, as a considerable amount of activity is guaranteed in the future. I agree that it cannot qualify at this time. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Barack Obama is constanty doing stuff, but its an FA. I doubt a bid with a result that's 7 years away is less stable than that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I use the Star Trek rule. Star Trek (film) failed GA twice for this exact same reason, so I would think the other one couldn't be a GA. Wizardman 03:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Either Chicago gets the bid or not; that answer will be known in 5 years after which the topic will not change (if they get it, then coverage goes to 2016 Summer Olypmics, if they don't, well, there's likely after math). Obama, on the other hand, probably has a good number of decades of events that can be continued to be added, and that much of a long tail is hard to prevent from going up in quality. --MASEM (t) 03:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama is a person. As such, there is no definite endpoint. A closer comparison would be Presidency of Barack Obama. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I just think a lot of articles are on things that aren't finished, and 5+ years away is long enough that I would allow it to go for GA. If the result was coming anytime soon, I's say hold off, but it's not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Is the article unstable today? no. Does it comprehensively cover the topic per what we know today? Maybe (havent reviewed it), but you cannot possibly argue it is not comprehensive based on what has not happened yet. It is as valid a nomination as any other. Resolute 04:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This "5 years result" is incorrect. As the lead states, the winner will be picked in October of this year; a mere 6 months away. Again, I'm thinking that this should be kept back until then. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 09:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness is not a GA criterion, nor is the article unstable per the criteria. However, there is no doubt that the article will have to be changed substantially in October, whatever the outcome of the bid: take a look at the Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics. In this respect, a closer analogy is with a presidential campaign: at WP:GA#Political events, none of the 2008 campaigns were listed before the candidate withdrew. This is purely a matter of pragmatism, hence is not part of the good article criteria, but is instead discussed at WP:Reviewing good articles: "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint". If listed as a GA now, the article would have to be reassessed in October.

"Rapidly" is of course a subjective term. Hence I suggest that if someone wants to review the nomination and pledge to reassess it in October, they should be free to do so. If no one steps forward, the nomination can be removed, and the nominator politely asked to resubmit it in October. Geometry guy 11:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your solution is a marvel in compromise. :) I personally think that it's just much easier to wait a (relatively) little while and then resubmit it. But if someone can make the promise (and that wouldn't include me), then that would also be great. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 13:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that I support it's right to be nominated, I will review it, and make that agreement. Resolute 14:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I just extensively reviewed the article Black Sabbath, and placed the article on hold. While I was doing my review, it seems that the nominator, User:J04n, states on their talkpage that they will be away until the 25th. So, what should I do? Should I send them a message right now telling them that the article is on hold? Should I wait until they return? I don't know, I've never been in this situation before... CarpetCrawler^{message me} 05:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep it on hold until they return, but make sure they know about it. Apterygial 05:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So make sure to send a message now? OK, that's what I thought. Thank you for the clarification! :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 05:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The person who nominated the article, User:ItsLassieTime, has been banned for 18 months. What should we do with their nomination? Withdraw it? CarpetCrawler^{message me} 23:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Unless someone else wants to take it through the process. One problematic thing is that ILT used almost all offline sources in their GAs, and now turns out to have a problem telling the truth. I wonder if it would be good to double check their GAs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oy. That's trouble. Then really, we have no choice but to withdraw the nomination, as well as the nominator's other nominations. If the references were online, it'd be easy to review the article even if the user were banned. However, I feel we have no choice but to withdraw the article. Anyone else agree? CarpetCrawler^{message me} 00:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

They also said the one good thing they did was not use one sock to review another's GA. We may want to double check the reviewers were real people. here's the list. I don't think they submitted under any other names. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:The Mansion of Happiness/GA2,Talk:Cootie (game)/GA1,Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ruth Martin (Lassie)/1,Talk:Horror comics in the United States, 1947–1954/GA1,Talk:Eerie (comics)/GA1,Talk:Pal (dog actor)/GA1,Talk:Baby Jesus theft/GA1 (has online refs, thankfully),Talk:The Story of the Three Bears/GA1,Talk:Play-Doh/GA1,Talk:Vauxhall Gardens/GA1,Talk:Milo of Croton/GA1. I don't think they faked their refs, since I think that would be harder than using actual refs. Could be wrong, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ruth Martin (Lassie)/1 3 people commented - myself, Matisse (now taking a rest from GA reviewing), and Geometry Guy, the nearest thing there is to a "leader" of the GA project. I reviewed at Talk:Milo of Croton/GA1. Any suggestion that I am sock of User:ItsLassieTime will be copied to the humour section of my user page, complete with the author's sig :-) --Philcha (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The only reviewer who looks suspicious is MidnightDreary, who has "fan" userboxes for both the Pittsburgh Steelers and Baltimore Ravens. There's something deeply wrong about that. (Disclaimer: yes, it's a joke.) Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so should we remove the nomination, then? CarpetCrawler^{message me} 06:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If someone disagrees (which I doubt), we can just put it back. No big deal. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I withdrew the nomination. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 07:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Have withdrawn form list and quick failed following above discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I highly disagree with this article being quickfailed. Quickfailing is different from a simple withdrawal, which is what the above consensus seems to have been; it stays on the article's record, so to speak. Besides, "only currently active editor has been banned for 18 months" is not part of the quickfail criteria. The GAN template should have just been removed, IMO. Can someone fix this, please? María (habla conmigo) 22:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with quickfailing this article as well. It appears that it was failed because it uses offline references, which would be a trouble to check. I think that's outrageous. I'd be very much in favour of reversing this quickfail and reinstating the GA nomination. So much so that I'd even be prepared to get hold of those few references myself and stand in for the banned nominator at GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, how do we go about reverting the quick fail? I was done in good faith as that seemed to be the consensus at the time. It would be easy to renominate, but I am not sure whether an admin needs to get involved for a revert. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If Sandy can reopen FACs, I'm sure non-admins can reopen GACs as well. If there is an arcane bit of policy-for-policy's-sake or technical restriction floating around that it needs an admin to do it, let me know and I'll reopen it. (Or just renominate it yourself…) – iridescent 00:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs any wikiwonkery magic. I'm inclined to interpret the quick fail as an administrative failure, as it wasn't based on a reading of the article. So, applying WP:IAR, I'm going to reinstate the article's GA nomination and remove its out of process failure from the article's history. Anyone who wants to fight me over it knows where to find me. Make sure you bring weapons. Lots of weapons. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, renominated and inserted into list at correct place. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You got there before me, excellent. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm pleased to be able to report that The Princess and the Pea has now successfully completed the GA process. In view of the concerns raised above about the offline sources used I got hold of them myself and double-checked. Apart from a few incorrect page numbers with one particular book, which may simply be down to me referring to a different edition, the sources supported everything it was claimed they did, so there's no obvious cause for cencern about the other GAs nominated by this editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'm a real person (well not my username) and I reviewed Talk:Vauxhall Gardens/GA1, plus another 80-ish WP:GANs.Pyrotec (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone wonders what went on with this review today - I mistakenly thought that I had found evidence of serious copyright violation. As I said, I was mistaken - so I reverted my failure and am carrying on the review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am away on holiday for the next three weeks so if any reviewer would like to check on the ongoing - on hold - reviews for Bane (comics) - several outstanding issues which the nominator just does not appear to get - and Roger Atkinson Pryor - no response to intital review by nominator - thatt would be cool. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Charles A. May was passed as GA without a GA review. Is this OK? Also, it was not listing under Wikipedia:Good articles. Should I list it? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see a review: Talk:Charles A. May/GA1, but it's not listed, please list it. Hekerui (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I saw that and transcluded the review to the talk page, and checked that it was already listed. Tried to post here, but had edit conflict. Hence, note below. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 15:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is listed, under both "Military people" and "Recently listed good articles"; check the page history. Everything is as it should be. María (habla conmigo) 20:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am undertaking the review of this article. I note the quickfail criteria include: "The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint". The lead of the article under review states "After the elections (at which Proposition 8 was passed), demonstrations and protests occurred across the state and nation. Numerous lawsuits were filed with the California Supreme Court by same-sex couples and government entities, challenging the proposition's validity and effect on previously administered same-sex marriages. The court heard oral arguments on March 5, 2009 and is expected to reach a decision within 90 days of that date." (emphasis added)

Can I get other editors' views on whether this would meet the quickfail criteria? On the one hand, the court case is not the subject of the article; on the other hand, it is obviously crucial to whether proposition 8 will survive. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

As the 90 days from March 5 won't be up for another four weeks or so I'd say this article meets the quickfail criteria. Perhaps better if the nominator can be persuaded to withdraw it for now though, and resubmit when the court case is settled. I suppose there may even then be the possibility of an appeal, but I'd be happier hanging fire until the current case is settled anyway.

On an related note, if I were reviewing this article I'd be a little concerned about what seems to me excessive detail in some sections, probably an artefact of the recency of these events. Allowing a little more time to pass could only give a clearer perspective on what's significant and worth including and what isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. Sorry, I didn't realise you'd started the review, so yes, I'd now quickfail it for the reasons I gave above. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, I discourage quickfailing articles for issues that can be quickly corrected by an editor. I'd point it out to the nominator, and if they hadn't fixed it within a week, THEN I'd fail it. Of course, if the article is riddled with such errors, I'd probably quickfail it then. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that position in general, but in this specific case there is no "error", just a necessarily incomplete account of a rapidly unfolding event. The proper time for this to be considered at GAN is when the court case is settled in a few weeks. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a similar recent case. "Rapidly unfolding" is a subjective and pragmatic review issue, and not part of the GA criteria. Hence I would suggest again that there isn't any point in one reviewer quickfailing where another might be willing to provide a more detailed review (with a promise to reevaluate the article in 90 days time). If no such reviewer steps forward, the article could be removed without further review, but with encouragement to renominate in 90 days time.

As a side note, this appears to be a recurring issue, and may be enough of a reason to reconsider what the GAN review system is for, in order to improve it further. Geometry guy 22:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

There's yet another discussion of WP:NOTPLOT at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP.23PLOT_again.. I've made a suggestion which, if accepted, might lead to a change in the list of MOS elements required for GA status. So I think others involved in GA reviews should have a look and comment if they wish. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen an article passed for GA that is primarily plot summary. Usually article reviewers ask for enhanced production, reception and other relevant sections. I have seen reviewers ask for the plot section to be shortened, that it is too complex etc. I do not think plot sections are a particular issue for GA, as the criteria emphasize covering the broad issues. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Megalodon was passed in Jan 2008, and a reassessment was opened on 15 Mar 2009. I've done some detective work and believe that the article was passed improperly.

If my conclusion is accepted, would someone please undo the article's GA status. I'm a little nervous of doing this nyself as I'm not sure I know all the things that need to be kept consistent under the covers. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been told that I am an unwanted presence at GA reviews by User:Jennavecia who is an admin and who reverted a {{GAR}} template I placed on a page, but who allowed the GAR to proceed with just a chosen few participating. I was reprimanded by another admin User:Cirt for soliciting the input of one other editor and accused of WP:CANVASSING among other violations. I was accused of violating WP:AGF because I worried about POV regarding Scientology. Therefore, I will accede to their pressure and review no more GAs. I am in the middle of reviewing Solar urticaria and request that another editor finish this review. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I take a bit of a step back from actively reviewing for a little while, mostly due to the need to just recharge things a bit. But I can't help but notice the severe drop in quality around here. Take a look at this review, of which the article is now currently listed at WP:GAR (I don't mean to pick on just one reviewer, as I've noticed other poor reviews lately, but this is just one example, so apologies if this sounds a bit harsh). If we really want the little GA-plus symbol to be just an automatic, "everybody gets a trophy" thing, then maybe we're succeeding with that. But I don't think that's what we want here. I think it's much better to have a more rigorous, yet simplified, review process here, such that articles that meet certain minimum criteria can be promoted, and then go on to have a decent shot at the far more rigorous and complete featured article review. So, what's happened to quality here? Perhaps we need to put more emphasis on training good reviewers? Dr. Cash (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I too have had to step back from active reviewing recently, and I too have noticed a recent drop in the quality of (some) reviews and in (some) of the articles passing GA. I think the time is approaching when some form of quality control needs to be introduced. A suggestion might be to insist that all newly passed articles be listed at the top of the GA page for 24 or 48 hours so that any problems can be identified immediately and articles with problems re-reviewed. Part of this process should involve educating the reviewer as to the problems they missed in the first review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The other side of the coin is that I have had to stop reviewing GA articles because of interference by admins and even an Arbcon member who state that I am wrong in insisting that an article on a literary work needs some sort of "critical reception" section. An admin tried to prevent me from initiating a GAR. I would be in favor of some sort of esprit de corp to protect GA reviews from the venom of article editors when they do no like a review comment and open an AN/I thread to subdue the GA reviewer, as happened in my case. A solution offered at AN/I was to topic ban me from GA. It is very tricky to give a good GA review in this sort of atmosphere. What to do about this? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• For anyone who's interested, Mattisse is referring to this. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• For anyone who is interested, there is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1 that any article should be able to become a GA, and that it is unreasonable to required certain criteria. (This was the GAR that provoked the AN/I link that Malleus Fatuorum provided above. I was accused of wikihounding etc. because I tried to start this GAR and every effort is being made to trash me because of this GAR.) —Mattisse (Talk) 17:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the general pattern is, as I've been kept busy by one review that took a lot of work and another on an article with a very big subject. I don't think it's sensible to conclude there's been a general drop in the quality of reviews on the basis of 2 instances (or 3 if you count one I posted a few days ago). Any other serious examples, anyone? --Philcha (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a worthy topic, but why is this admins vs. editors now? Admins intervening in good article reviews happens how often? I don't think that's a large number of times. Hekerui (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have seen 3—recent—instances of a matter directly-related to GA being raised at Admin-specific boards, without their having originally been discussed here. (That's three inc. this one.) It is ... striking. The motivation for raising them there in first instance is unclear; I can think of multiple possible reasons. –Whitehorse1 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse's digression seems to have nothing to do with the original topic of this section (the alleged downtown of quality for recent GA reviews). Perhaps her concerns should be carried on in a separate forum. María (habla conmigo) 18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

True. I will not review GA articles anymore as that will take care of the problem. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, you've already stated that in the above section. I made my above comment before I clicked on Malleus' link, however, so excuse the whole "separate forum" suggestion. ;)

As for the topic of this discussion, the example that Dr. Cash cites seems to be the case of a new user who decided to jump straight into reviewing. From what I've seen, that happens very rarely. I can't recall any recent reviews that have sparked suspicions, but I've always been for the idea of mentoring "new" reviewers, if they ask for it. I don't think that we can, or will be able to, impose a mandated mentorship program and still be able to allow an open, single-user facilitated reviewing process like we have now. María (habla conmigo) 18:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been several others. The nominator of one WP:GAN refused to accept the "GA pass" awarded by the reviewer and removed the article from the list of GA's. I re-reviewed it, see Talk:Open Your Heart (Madonna song)/GA1. I can half remember another GAN review this year by an editor who had been in existence some three minutes before starting the review, but I can't remember who it was.Pyrotec (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There are hundreds of reviews a month, and I would expect that 2-10% of them are not up to snuff. I don't think it means we have to make any major changes, it's just something to be aware of. I think listing new GAs, with an easy link to their reviews, at the top of some page is a good idea. I bet a lot of poor reviews can be very easily spotted, and we can just throw them back in the pool. I don't think a GAR is needed unless someone objects, or just wants a GAR, in which case that's fine to. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that after a reviewer has finished his review and is has decided that the article is up to standards it instead be put on a list to be checked over and ultimately approved. Another editor will just briefly look over the article and review and decide if everything looks to be in order; for instance does the review look thorough enough. After this last look over, that reviewer will either pass the article or refer it back to it the normal review process (not reassessment). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In theory that is a good idea, but in practice I don't think it would work. We had a recent Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Spring 2009, which was great, but that was 106 articles. The intention was for them to be double checked, but in the end it was too much work. It also needs two competant reviewers for each candidate article. In theory, a new editor could reject, under this system, the verdict of an experienced reviewer.Pyrotec (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean like a second in depth review, rather someone looking at the other persons review and seeing if it was thorough. If there is a lot of back and forth and comments then great, but if it's just like check, check, check, fix this then there is a problem. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the above point, about how "check, check, check, fix this" means there's a problem with the review. Sometimes, there's really only one small issue, or a reviewer doesn't find anything wrong with an article. I understand the frustration, but honestly, if worse comes to worst, I don't see the harm in a reassessment. Having someone else look over the review someone did could be just as slow as the backlog that is at the GAN page right now. All we'll do is create another long backlog. Also, I respect the first user's concern about the reviewing, but I don't believe the problem is as severe as they say it is. GAN still has many quality reviewers on here. Every now and then, a new reviewer who doesn't know as much about the reviewing process as they thought they did accidentally passes an article incorrectly. However in my opinion, it is our responsibility as more established and experienced reviewers to remove their review, and send them a message on their talkpage explaining to them what they did incorrectly, all the while assuming good faith. I also review DYK? nominations, and sometimes the same things have happened there. We merely send a message to the user, explaining what they did wrong, and the user learns from the mistakes and becomes a better reviewer. I personally feel that this isn't as "severe" as the first user thinks, but that's just me. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 20:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The best reviewers should be proud of their reviews, and should never have to apologize for them. Geometry guy 22:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I know I am. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the above discussion about quality control, I'd like to remind reviewers about the Good articles log. This is updated twice a week by a bot and documents all changes made to the list of good articles. By following the links you can check whether a recently passed article was adequately reviewed, or whether a recent delisting was appropriate. Geometry guy 20:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to add a link to that on WP:GAN - if you can find space. --Philcha (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's linked from WP:GA, but a link from WP:GAN would be good too. Can you find a good place to add it, either here or at WP:Good article nominations/guidelines? Geometry guy 21:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Or better yet, at both here and the guidelines. :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 21:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines are transcluded here. Geometry guy 21:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oy. I'm thinking of something else. My bad. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 21:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries! Geometry guy 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In WP:GAN there's under-used space (even at 4:3 aspect ratio) alongside the "please help with the backlog" banner.

BTW, guess which topic accounts for the "oldest unreviewed nominations" :-) --Philcha (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to update everyone on the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Megalodon was passed by Steven Walling. My analysis of the history of this pass concludes that the article was passed improperly. I've had one direct encounter with Steven Walling, where he signed up to review Evolutionary history of life but posted no comments after several days. At that point I had a look at his contribs and found he was also GA reviewing several other articles, and suspected he was taking on too much - see the diff above for details. I took his name off the wP:GAN entry for Evolutionary history of life, and fairly soon the article was given a pretty thorough review. I suggest all articles passed by Steven Walling should be re-checked. If there are issues with any of these cases, I think we should consider how to make Steven Walling a reliable GA reviwer or, if that's infeasible, prevent him from doing any more GA reviews until he learns better. --Philcha (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Steve Walling the erstwhile VanTucky, before a name change? If so, he's been around since forever... and it appears that perhaps he is both parties in this episode... did you notify him of this thread? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been out-detectived! Thanks for pointing out the double life of ...(?) It would have helped a lot of he'd posted a final comment in the Jan 2008 GA review, incl a note about his identity.

Good suggestion about notifying Steven Walling, I'll do it now. --Philcha (talk)

I would not consider my work unreliable. Prior to changing my name from Vantucky, I did more than a hundred Good Article reviews, and even got a barnstar for my knowledge of the GA process. The reason I failed to keep up with reviewing (such as for Evolutionary history of life), is that the major change in the way the review process worked irked me to know end. I found it cumbersome, so I quit reviewing. That said, I'd stand behind any of my reviews from the past, and I think a comprehensive checking of my work for GA would be a waste of time in an already backlogged area. Steven Walling (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What was "the major change in the way the review process worked" that made you quit reviewing? I've suggested before, re the perennial shoratge of reviewers, that we should ask ex-reviewers why they quit. --Philcha (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It was the switch to using a permanent, dedicated subpage instead of just a regular talk page section. It was supposed to be some kind of archiving solution, but just added more bloat to what many considered to be an already bloated system. Steven Walling (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the article Tiger shark as part of the GA sweeps, and have come across a trivia section. (edit: actually, it's called "In popular culture") I have no idea what the community consensus is on the inclusion of this type of material; to compound the issue, the section is largely uncited. Any opinions, or perhaps a point to a page with some guidelines about this? Thanks Sasata (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a controversial topic, but I think that for GA at a minimum only cited instances should be included, and it should probably be in prose and not a list. Also, see Wikipedia:Trivia sections. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anything in the list adds to the article. The reader doesn't need to know that James Bond was once attacked by something that may or may not have been a tiger shark. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of it should go. It might be worth mentioning that tiger sharks have had several episodes of shark week devoted to them, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no clear line between "trivia" and "in culture" - one could even argue that "in culture" is "trivia" that's been around long enough for respectable sources to comment, or so famous that one can't just dismiss them, e.g. the "pop culture" items in Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor. In Tiger shark:

• I'd move the item abut A Pattern of Islands (1952) by Arthur Grimble to "Dangers and conservation" as a well-attested "man bites dog" contrast. The parallel that occured to me is that in some African cultures killing a lion single-handed is a rite of passage. Is there any suggestion of that for Pacific islanders' killing tiger sharks?
• I'd scrap the item about Mark Addison, as: the source is a blog, and it's unclear whether the poster is a staff writer or a viewer; it does not suport what the article says; and the "Diet" section says "The shark is known to circle its prey and even study it by prodding it with its snout". There might be the tiniest germ of a valid point somewhere in the "In popular culture", as I've read of an unintentional experiemnt that showed that some species have extremely good memories. But if there's good evidence for extremely good memory or social behaviour in tiger sharks, it should go in some sort of behaviour section.
• In the other items, there are no citations and the exact species does not seem important. --Philcha (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia needs to grow up and grow out of its adolescent attachment to trivia and other such completely non-notable garbage. Are we an encyclopedia, or are we Geocities? As for "in popular culture" sections, they are almost always merely an escape hatch to get around any restrictions placed on adding trivia. Here's the rule that should be followed: If the pop-culture reference in an by and for and of itself is notable, then it's potentially OK to include it. Forex, if a video game based on a historic battle becomes a huge multi-million unit selling international hit, with many references in various newspapers etc., then it could perhaps be mentioned in the article about the battle (but it would be better to leave it off as a confusing anachronism). If some actor or other utters the phrase "this is my Waterloo" in some movie or TV show somewhere or other — then please! please! please! delete its mention from the article about Waterloo.
• Looking at Tiger shark — I don't see any reason not to delete the entire section. We have trivial incidents involving tiger sharks, plus one nature show. The point is, though the various movies, books etc. that are mentioned are notable, the incidents involving the shark(s) are not. can you find more than one reference for them? I'll be extremely generous and suggest that references might be found for for half of them. The others don't even begin to deserve to be included in the article. For the other half, even if you can find references (e.g., some book abut Jaws might mention the tiger shark), the incidents themselves are still trivial. Delete everything. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "A man walks into a bar and shouts TIGER SHARK! A second man goes online and documents it on Wikipedia." Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 07:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all, for helping me clarify my opinion about trivia sections. And, LOL re: the bar joke Sasata (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I agree that this one (tiger shark) was not very notable, but others often are. I think notable documentaries featuring the species in question are good to include, but with this there was the headache of one measly reffed bit left for a whole section..oh well, another day. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

For example, the case for mentioning Jaws in an article about the Great White would be pretty strong. Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, trivia sections are useful in the early stages of article development (stub, start, C-class). This is because it enables lots of people to add information to the article in one place, quickly and easily via bulleted list. During the article's B-class stage, and prior to GA, the trivia section should be gone over by more experienced editors and the information in it should be added to other, more relevant and appropriate, sections. Trivia sections in articles is a gigantic red flag at the featured article stage -- I have yet to see any FA with a trivia section. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Cash's comment is very sensible - a lot of discussions about aspects of article quality ignore the fact that articles do not usually appear fully developed out of the sea. --Philcha (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm probably arriving a little late to the conversation, but as a member of WP:WikiProject Popular Culture, I feel compelled to comment. "Trivia" and "In popular culture" sections are normally unacceptable, as most of them are indeed trival and largely unsourced. However, that is not to say they are totally usesless. The project does indeed have GA and (one, very old) FA class articles, which are solely devoted to "cultural references" of particular subjects. By and large, I agree with the opinions expressed in this discussion. Trivial mentions of the subject are not notable, but sourced and notable depictions of the subject are indeed acceptable content for an encyclopedia. Many editors are quick to throw out popular culture sections as trash, but I think they are valuable additions which any respectable encyclopedia would embrace. Think of Cultural depictions of Jesus or Satan in popular culture, would anyone think depictions such as Jesus Christ Superstar or Dante's Inferno are not suitable for an encyclopedic article regarding Jesus or Satan? Probably not, yet most are quick to dismiss other cultural references regarding everyday subjects. I wish more editors would think twice before deleting such sections without regard to the validity of such references. By no means am I condoning the additon of trivial or passing references to subjects, I think they should be deleted as much as anyone else. But notable and/or major references should not be deleted without careful consideration. </soapbox> --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite addressing the question, which is that in the Jesus Christ article, for instance, would you expect to see a trivia section listing every actor who's ever played Christ? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Or that "Jesus Christ was crucified on wood?" Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Calling All Athletics Fans!} 03:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. I was simply making the point that pop culture references are vaid entries for an encyclopedia. By no means am I condoning the massive amounts of trivial references that seem to multiply like rabbits in articles (and its funny that you use xkcd as an example, because that webcomic is the inspiration for a large amount of trivial references added by editors). I was making the point that not all "trivia" or "in popular culture" information is useless or unnecessary (just most of it). I was merely suggesting that editors not simply make wholesale dismissals of these additions. Thats all I was trying to say. I can see from their comments on this page that many of the editors here agree with that. My main point was to inform others that there is indeed a WikiProject which exists to improve these articles, in a manner which conforms to the policies and guidelines of WP. No big deal. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 00:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The wholesale dismissal of any specific type of material needs to be well-considered beforehand. Note that we are talking about trivia sections. Often I find that, at best, these consist of a number of irrelevancies and half truths, and perhaps one or two ideas that could be brought into the main body. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Calling All Athletics Fans!} 01:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1 is turning out to be "interesting". I suggested and G-guy agreed that we need more reviewers to contribute to the GAR. Roll up, roll up! --Philcha (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why is it not possible to react this reassessment page from the article, as it is with the Walmart article below in the GAR queue? On that article, if the reader clicks the Currently undergoing a good article reassessment. link, the editor reaches Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wal-Mart/1 But on the Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology ariicle, clicking that link brings an error Bad title page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AGood_article_reassessment/Ali%27s_Smile%253A_Naked_Scientology/1 Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem now that this thread has a working link - it's well and truly public now :-) Philcha (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Final Resolution (2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The above looks to have a very cursory review, in my opinion. do others agree? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I'm not even convinced that the reviewer actually read the article with stuff like this in it: "Jarrett retained the championship in the bout after performed a maneuver he named the Stroke three times by grabbing Brown's head, and tucking his leg between Brown's two." --Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't have much to do with these wrestling articles. I don't know what the standards are meant to be in some ways. The points made in the review seemed fair enough. The article is well-structured and tells me lots of stuff I didn't know in a well-structured, and mostly well-written sequence. Still, like Malleus, my quick read found a couple of typos (misspelt names), and do we normally have colloquial language like "bashed Jarrett over the head with it" or "jumping forward to land on his butt"? Anyway, I'd be happy to see it re-considered, or... whatever happens with these things. As someone getting increasingly involved with GA Reviewing (some of which take weeks to get fully worked through), I will watch the outcome with interest. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

7 minutes from adding review tag to passing does not mean I only read the article for seven minutes, I simply didn't add the tag before I reviewed it, but I am happy for a review of the review if others feel it necessary, or the editing away of what I may have missed and what needs fixing. SGGH ^ping! 12:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The entire text of Talk:Final Resolution (2005)/GA1 is:

==GA Review==

This review is transcluded from Talk:Final Resolution (2005)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review by SGGH ^ping!:

• The article does not fail any of the quickfail criteria.

• The article is well written.
• The sources are reliable, there are inline citations. None of the ref tags are defective. The references are difficult to verifty, but the footnotes are suitable.
• The article has a broad coverage suitable to the topic.
• The article has no POV problems.
• The article has no edit warring problems.
• The images are suitable, are free or have suitable fair use rationales.

Good work. Passed. SGGH ^ping! 13:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Re "well written", see the monstrosity noted above by Malleus. BTW I don't mind slightly colloquial terms in this type of subject, as it's the general style of pro wrestling sources (I reviewed Lisa Moretti a while ago).
• "The references are difficult to verifty" is very questionable. They are all online, so easy to access. If "difficult to verifty" means "it's hard to see how well statements are supported by sources", the article is sub-standard in a very serious way.

Looks like a GAR is required. --Philcha (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just did a quick check. Ref and lead looks ok. Have to dig deeper into MoS OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"refs difficult to verify" refer to the videos. I can't watch them. SGGH ^ping! 19:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I am the author of said article. I've written multiple other PPV articles such as Lockdown (2008), Sacrifice (2008), Slammiversary (2008), Hard Justice (2008), No Surrender (2008), Victory Road (2004), and Turning Point (2004) which all passed their GA reviews. Lockdown also went on to become a Featured Article with the same sources, prose, etc as Final Resolution did. As for the long winded descriptions, I agree need to be cut-down. It was already agreed to do so. I have just been too busy to do that. I expected for them to become problems during the remove so I just held off on them. I tend to finish articles in the middle of the night since I suffer from self-diagnosed delayed sleep phase syndrome. I make alot of typos as a result. I'm hoping soon to be able to re-write Final Resolution because I would like to add more information and sources, since I believe I go too in-depth with the matches and not enough on the background, plus I believe I need a bigger reception section and at least 20 refs. If it is agreed a GAR is needed, I'll go along with it. A month would be nice though, so that I can go back and read the TNA Impact! reports written by Slam Sports and PW Torch, plus do more reseach and expand the reception section. That way it is in its finished version and I know it is a good article (I have alot of real-life work to get done first so it is a bit hectic for me).--WillC 09:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A month is not unusual for a community GAR (they usually last at least two weeks). Any editor is welcome to start one. Alternatively if any reviewer would like to help Wrestlinglover out with an individual reassessment, please go ahead! Geometry guy 22:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As for month, I mean waiting a month before you start it. Give me a month to update it then start the GAR.--WillC 23:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. A while back, I nominated Earl Cain and yesterday, it got reviewed by User:Extremepro, who on his user page says he has significantly edited Earl Cain. According to the GAN page, it says that editors who have significantly edited the article prior to the review cannot review it. User:Extremepro left a nice review of the article (no sarcasm meant), and I'm sure he means well. I am not sure what to do. Help, please? Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is getting very confusing. It looks like Extremepro nominated the article for Peer Review, here (Wikipedia:Peer review/Earl Cain/archive1), on 20 April 2009 with the intention of putting it up for WP:GAN and also reviewed it here ([[1]]) on 19 April 2009 with the java script reviewer User:AndyZ/peerreviewer. Looking at the edit history of the article, Extremepro has certainly edited it and this is also (as stated above) stated on that editor's talkpage.

Extremepro then started the WP:GAN review on 11 May and put the review On Hold on 12 May (see Talk:Earl Cain/GA1). It looks like a possible self-review to me.Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted somebody who wasn't involved with the article to review it... Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, just tell him nicely that he edited significantly on the article so he should avoid conflict of interest by refraining to review the article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I have decided to review the article. :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 22:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I just by chance stumbled over this page dated ~27 april, which I'm afraid you have to read through to understand why this message. 1 May End of yarn volunteered to review Physics and astronomy: Liquid crystal, left a brief note and was gone. Any problem-solving advice or action is welcome. My concern is that other potential reviewers might get distracted by the "review" note on the GAN page. Thanks.NIMSoffice (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I would undo at GAN that End of yarn is reviewing the article. Then put a comment in bold above or below the GA review box on the talk page explaining that the review still needs a reviewer (I have found this same problem when editors who want to leave comments before a reviewer has taken the article create the review page to do so). Also putting the discussion at the review page in a separate subsection would be good.

I had some doubt weather End of yarn faked the Quark review. To a nonspecialist, it looked like GA material and the elapsed time between accepting and passing the article for GA was conceivable that they really reviewed the article and just didn't think it was necessary to write it up. So I figured their subsequent actions would tell what they really did in the first place. I wanted to see if End of yarn would or would not write out the review of the Quark article for us as they said they would, but the nominator withdrew the article. But this tells me End of yarn was and is just goofing around. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear the user End of yarn is not returning to complete the review. Additionally, the contribs of the newly-created user have a definite hint of fakery. Their first edit was creating their User talk page with a statement 'hello im new...', which is probably copied from another page; the next couple of edits show the user "suddenly" developed a good grasp of punctuation, appropriate casing, and syntax.

Something in the style and manner reminded me of User:Yellowweasel (contribs talk) – however it would take a Checkuser investigation to determine that connection.

The Liquid crystal GAN is easily addressed. It's unlikely a new reviewer will need the GAN comments End of yarn made; however, placing a clear note on the review rather than deleting the subpage to start over seems sufficient. If you would like the subpage deleted please do say so, but it probably isn't necessary. The note End of yarn is actively reviewing the article on GA Nominations entry can be removed, placing the nomination back in the queue. –Whitehorse1 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think one comment by End of Yarn and the comments by TheGreatDr and Stone addressed the article, and are both useful and part of the review. Probably the whole thing should be kept for the record also, in case admin action against End of yarn's IP is taken. Diderot's dreams (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see my post here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let them come. - DSachan (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, you may be missing my point :) I need to have reviewers volunteered to help before the nomination, not the other way around - I know the nominations will come. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, actually I got it right. I said this as a sign of encouragement and in the spirit of a volunteer reviewer for your class. I know too that they are coming. It was just to let it be known that I am in for those reviews. Is there some place where we were supposed to sign up or something? I guess not. - DSachan (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, you should encourage your students to understand the GA criteria - Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_11#GA_guides links to some guides on writing Good Articles. After reading these, please raise any questions and we'll do our best to answer them. --Philcha (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both! And I will be trying my best to drive what Wikipedia and what GAs are to the students. Check this out.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 11:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I like your guide, and may plagiarise bits of it :-)

I still think it needs more guidance on actually writing a GA, which I've already mentioned. Also it might be good (if there's time) to get your students to do mock GA reviews on each others' articles - as well as improving the articles, the reviewers will learn more about content creation from doing reviews, I know I did. --Philcha (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good idea to have them do reviews, but unfortunately GA is not well suited for more then one reviewer. Perhaps WP:PR would be a better place? Or they can just do clearly non-GA reviews. Is there some guide for GA reviewers on how to make good reviews? And I should probably convert my guide into another boilerplate when I have some time.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and the examples at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_11#Model_GA_reviews may help. --Philcha (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey all. One of the GA mentors suggested I bring this here. I've nominated Fatbeard (South Park) for a GA and a reviewer took it on, but he hasn't done anything with the review since April 30. I've left two messages on his talk page, but gotten no response. Can anyone help me out? I wasn't sure how exactly to go about either removing the reviewer or just asking someone else to review it? — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 16:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I quick-failed British_International_School_Vietnam as non-neutral inadequately referenced spam. it has now been listed here. If it is acceptable to list a failed GAN for reassessment, what's the point of GAN? jimfbleak (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the usefulness / appropriateness of GAR (for non-GAs)depends on the quality of the article at the time of the GAR nomination - but that rapidly becomes ever-decreasing circles.

I've been in 2 situations where an immediate re-review made sense: an article by a good editor, which I failed because IMO there were obvious gaps, but a GAR disagreed; and one I nominated, where the review posted nothing for 3 weeks and delivered an immediate fail.

After a quick look I agree with your assessment of the article. However I would not have quick-failed because: I'm not infallible (see above); it pisses nominators off, as you can see; it does nothing to improve the article or its editors.

In this particular case I think the best way to avoid a flame war is to play the GAR perfectly straight. I'll enter come comments, and I hope a few other reviwers will, in order to make it plain that it's not an arbitrary decision by just one person. --Philcha (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The point of GAN is that in most cases a one-nominator-one-reviewer process suffices to establish whether an article meets the criteria, thus saving an awful lot of time and effort and allowing many more articles to be processed. The point of GAR is that in some cases it doesn't suffice. Geometry guy 09:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How come the process is so formal and heavy nowadays, especially in that case when it was so obvious YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "formal and heavy"? --Philcha (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:MacGyverMagic signed up to review this on 8 March but the review appears not have statrted. I have posted twice on his talk page and so has the nominator. I propose that I take over the review. Do you think that this would be OK? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. It's been a long time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have performed an initial review. On hold for some minor improvements. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Article now passed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have some concerns with User:Spiderone's recent sports nominations. He appears to have nominated both David Villa and Asafa Powell without having made a single edit to either article. Not only are these articles not fully prepared for a GA review, the user will probably not be up to the task of assessing either the used sourced material nor familiar with relevant sources to cite the articles. He also has a number of other GANs which appear premature but I can't comment on them as I have not been involved in their writing as I have the other two. What is the normal response to such cases? GA doesn't seem to demand that editors be primary editors as FA does. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 17:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I haven't contributed to Villa, Powell or even Patrick Kisnorbo but this doesn't mean they shouldn't be reviewed. I'm still unsure what needs to be done to get them to GA status and I'm also bemused at why they are start/stubs and I don't know how to get them reassessed. Also my English isn't great as I'm Chinese so I can't do much of the rewording and generally can't add much new info. Spiderone (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I consider that it would best if GA nominations be made only after after discussion on the article talk page. This is common courtesy (and common sense as well). Nominations could be withdrawn if the active editors agreed to do so. Seeking consensus is generally the best way to proceed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Spiderone, without going through the articles, I can still tell that you need to provide 'full citations' for them to have any chance to reach GA. Both of them need full citations badly. That's quite some work. - DSachan (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Some articles such as Bob Ferguson (infielder) don't have that many citations. Spiderone (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

By 'full citations' I meant citations according to the standard format for web referenes. This might help. - DSachan (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Spiderone, in Bob Ferguson (infielder) there's a citation about every 2nd sentence. From the point of view of verifiability, that looks well up to current GA standards. These citations refer to only a small number of sources, but that's a different issue - whether the article is neutral and does not give undue weight to any source's opinions on the subject. This can only be decided by looking at the article and searching for other sources. It's quite common and IMO legitimate for articles to use one or two high-quality sources (usually books) for uncontroversial material, such as the basic facts of a person's life or the basic biology of an organism, and then a much wider range of sources for opinions, especially where sources disagree. --Philcha (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kisnorbo needs a better lead as well YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes a good lead? Spiderone (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD will help you here. - DSachan (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To short YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have boldly removed the nominations for now, because it takes ten seconds to renominate them but once a review has started, lots of complications come up and lots of time gets wasted. Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, a correct decision I would say. In the meantime, Spiderone should concentrate on his/her 3 other GA nominations and check them against GA criteria to get sense of what it takes to take the article to GA level. - DSachan (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by noms are ok. End of discussion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK for what? reopenining discussion.Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Drive by nominations serve no useful point. Discuss nominations on talk page first is best in my opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think in the past we have said that drive by noms are OK (not necessarily my opinion). It's probably in the archives. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't reject in principle the idea of somebody uninvolved nominating an article, although it's hard to imagine a case where this would be appropriate without prior talk page discussion. The reason I removed these is because they had no chance, and once a review started, it would have left GA-cruft in various places that would make things more difficult for nominators and reviewers. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps our "how to nominate" instructions should include e.g. "Do not nominate an article if you are not prepared to make improvements suggested in the review." Can anyone see any credible situations that does not cover?

The first three noms in the music section have been under review for over a month; the first is approaching two. What's going on there? If it takes this long to fix, shouldn't it be failed? I don't know if the editors and reviews have a deal worked out for time, but it stood out so I thought I would mention it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are similarly, or even longer, holds in "Places". One goes back to February, another to March.Pyrotec (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. It looks like there is some action in most of tese. But if nominators are busy in real life, it may take time for amendments and responses to be made. There is no definite time span for this. If a reviewer is not responding to fixes, that is another matter. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is sometimes appropriate to add a comment to the review asking when progress is expected, and if you don't get a reasonable response after a reasonable time, to give warning and then close the review. People shouldn't be rushed, but reviews shouldn't hang forever either. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. A couple weeks is alright, even a month depending on the article. On hold since Feb. or under review since March is just not acceptable though. (I've since left about six messages to the appropriate people regarding all these articles. Gaza I'm tempted to just remove the on hold myself since the person didn't respond to a note left in April) Wizardman 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I find the hold period of 3 months for Gaza ridiculous and unfair on the people who wrote the Gaza article. The reviewer has been asked by three separate editors now what is going to happen to the review and there has been no response. While the reviewer has been relatively inactive recently, the review should have been passed on to someone else. Or if a review gets messy, help should be called for as ignoring the situation doesn't make it go away. Nev1 (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As the on hold tag has been removed, I aim to complete the review my self. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Having checked the article out, all points raised by other editors have been addressed, GA criteria met and article duly passed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If there needs to be a back-and-forth for three or four weeks, then clearly the article did not meet the criteria when it was nominated and it should just fail. We know the nominators can be busy, and it takes time to make suggested changes to an article, but the point of GA is to determine whether the article meets the criteria at a specific time. You can nominate an article an infinite number of times, so we shouldn't hesitate to just fail articles if they aren't there yet.

There really ought to be a time limit for both parties. For example, if a reviewer does not respond for three days the review can ended by anyone, but the article is left in its existing spot for someone else to pick it up. If a single review has been active for more than 2 weeks, it can be assumed to have failed and removed by anyone. GA is not peer review, it should be "pass" or "fail" (or a brief "on hold" for minor issues, not for rewriting the entire thing). Otherwise you get situations like the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.244.151 (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re time-limit for editors, I disagree. some topics are complex, and improvements in coverage or structure may take a long time. I'm happy to wait as long as progress is being made. IMO it often takes fewer man-hours in total for 1 reviewer to stay with an article for a few weeks than for 2 or more to have to learn their way around the article and subject again when the article is re-nominated. --Philcha (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Time limits of reviewers are also complex. The simplest issue is again whether its more efficient for 1 reviewer to to stay with an article. --Philcha (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

<undent> I agree with Philcha, articles nominated at WP:GAN come in many different guises. Some are near perfect and can be passed fairly easily, some are in a hopeless state and may be quickfailed. The majority are somewhere in between and can be improved to GA status. This may take more than a week or so. I think that if a reviewer does not respond to improvements or messages from the nominator, within a week, then there is cause for concern. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone is reviewing the 1995 European Grand Prix for me... only problem is that they [the reviewer] are saying that they will make the changes so that they can then pass it. I didn't think that is what the GAN review process is about, i.e. reviewer makes changes himself then passes it, I thought the process was "said user reviews article; article writer improves article based on comments and so on until passed". Am I missing something? D.M.N. (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing to say that reviewers can't get involved in editing the article to help it pass, but usually it's a case of copyediting rather than adding significant content as that could be perceived as a conflict of interest. Nev1 (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In my experience very many nominators get quite agitated if they're presented with a long list of, let's say serious grammatical or spelling errors, rather than the reviewer simply fixing them. As Nev1 correctly says though, reviewers ought not to be altering an article's content, merely its presentation. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer myself to have a long-list of things to improve on - of course not grammatical errors which need to be fixed; I don't think there are any in the article I'm working on now. I'd prefer a list of improvements rather than someone going ahead and copy-editing the article. D.M.N. (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Then tell your reviewer that, not me. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The nominator appears to have set a timescale for submitting the article to WP:FAC and this "question" might be construed a means to applying pressure on the WP:GAN reviewer to complete the work within the timescale set by the article's WP:GAN nominator for a WP:FAC - which is not the purpose of a GAN.Pyrotec (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No: If someone started a review on the 15th I was then expecting some kind of review.... all that's happened is a few comments; no proper constructive review in the 9 days since apart from the odd comment. D.M.N. (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what was said:

"It is stable. The images are OK - though the images of Coulthard and Schumacher are not from the race, and are not strictly essential. Questionable value. Looks like they are there just to pretty up the article. Shame there are no action shots from the actual race. Has Flickr been searched? Prose is clear and spelling accurate. There's a one paragraph sentence in the first paragraph and the lead might be a little short, and not giving enough details about the background to the drivers and constructors position in the championship. I've not yet examined the cites, but this appears to be well sourced. Coverage is appropriate for the topic, and appears to cover most aspects. I'll examine more closely for neutrality - but first examination is that this is fine. I think this will be OK. SilkTork *YES! 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)"

So, its not an instant failure; it will either pass GA, or will pass GA after changes have been made. OK, I can understand the frustration - you don't know what changes are needed, but the WP:lead 'possibly' needs a bit of attention and there is a 'question' over the images.Pyrotec (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The situation is that I reviewed three F1 articles at the same time. I made similar suggestions on all three. The nominators on 2008 Turkish Grand Prix and 2008 Spanish Grand Prix carried out the suggestions and the articles were passed GA. D.M.N. decided not to make the suggested changes. As improvements on 1995 European Grand Prix were not happening I offered to do the work myself. Where I make significant changes, so much that my role as reviewer is compromised, I withdraw. As I did with Kraków. My intention on Kraków is to assist with the editing to bring it to standard, and allow it to be nominated for GA and reviewed by someone else. I would have made a judgement at the end of editing 1995 European Grand Prix if my role as reviewer would have been comprised and if so I would have withdrawn as with Kraków. I am unclear as to why D.M.N. is not assisting and working with me on this review. The work involved doesn't appear to be too much. We now have an impasse. D.M.N. is unwilling to do the work and D.M.N. doesn't want me to do the work. The nature of GANs is that sometimes they are quick and sometimes they are slow. They take the speed they need. They would, of course, move faster if suggested improvements were carried out. Suggested courses of action now are:

a) Time given for the suggested improvements to be carried out by D.M.N., or decent reasons given for unwillingness to do so. "I think the lead is fine myself" is understood. I wouldn't expect an article to be nominated for GA unless the person nominating felt it was fine. The idea of a GAN is for an independent eye to look over the article and pick out those items that a nominator may have missed.

b) The suggested improvements are carried out by myself. Judgment given after that editing to see if the amount of work has compromised my position as reviewer. It is worth noting that "Reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to fix problems with the article under review." I've never had a problem with assisting editors to bring an article to GA status by helping out with editing. This assistance has previously been welcomed. If in doubt, discuss, where obvious, correct.

c) Time given for the suggested improvements to be carried out by somebody else.

d) The review to be taken over by somebody else as the nominator is unwilling to work with me.

e) The GAN to be failed as the article doesn't meet GA criteria and no improvements are being made to bring it to standard.

I'll accept any of the above. Or a new solution. SilkTork *^YES! 16:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. You're initial comment over at the GAN was:

It is stable.

The images are OK - though the images of Coulthard and Schumacher are not from the race, and are not strictly essential. Questionable value. Looks like they are there just to pretty up the article. Shame there are no action shots from the actual race. Has Flickr been searched?

Prose is clear and spelling accurate. There's a one paragraph sentence in the first paragraph and the lead might be a little short, and not giving enough details about the background to the drivers and constructors position in the championship.

I've not yet examined the cites, but this appears to be well sourced.

Coverage is appropriate for the topic, and appears to cover most aspects.

I'll examine more closely for neutrality - but first examination is that this is fine.

I think this will be OK.

So, two things. One the images, and you've said the lead might be a little short (although that in itself is judgmental). You also say not enough about the drivers'/constructors' positions in the background - there's a short paragraph on it which I didn't think couldn't be expanded further. My next comment was:

Thanks for that. Flickr doesn't have any images from the event (probably due to the fact it was 14 years ago!) hence why I've gone for those images. They're not exactly spectacular, but its something as they prefer images once at FAC!

I think the lead is fine myself, I do mention the Drivers' positions, but I don't want to go too in-depth as the lead is only like a "summary".

Thanks for the comments.

So, I've stated myself Flickr has no images, the event was in 1995, chances are there are zero images hence the driver images, mostly from present day as a sufficient replacement already in the article. I've also given my reasoning for the lead. What else am I meant to do? I can't imagine what the reviewer "thinks" of the article - I don't have a crystal ball in my head telling me. At this point I'm thinking "what now?" - nothing's been suggested. At first, I thought (s)he hadn't noted my comments hence this comment. I didn't know what else to do. I was then surprised when, at the GAN page the reviewer said they'd then be doing edits to the article. OK, there's nothing wrong with it, but I'd prefer suggestions and like a proper review, I'm confused by the above its called a review for a reason, isn't it? I've responded to criticism on the article - there's not much else to do, is there? D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked by a first-time reviewer to look over their GA review for Allocator (C++) (review here). The article is well-written and comprehensive, and I largely agree with their assessment, but I'm not massively familiar with reviewing programming articles and would appreciate some further opinions. Other than some expansion of the lead and possible WP:JARGON issues, the main concern I have is the amount of example coding in the article - this seems to me to run into WP:OR and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The author has argued not unreasonably that this should be seen as no different to prose or mathematical formulae, but I wonder what other GA reviewers think? EyeSerene^talk 08:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Philcha

(you can paste these into the review if you wish) IMO this is far from a GA. --Philcha (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. decltype (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Coverage

• Does not clearly distinguish between or compare the pros/cons of off-the-peg and custom allocators. I'd expect off-the-peg allocators to offer the usual benefits of reusability: reduced development cost of individual apps; greater reliability, because tested in a greater range of apps. Disadvantages: possibly less efficient for specific apps; dependence on an external source for a critical function. If this comment is considered irrelevant, then the article has failed to define what it's about. --Philcha (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• In fact looking again I think the article has failed to define what it's about, which may be one or more of: why allocators may be needed (i.e. why the standard facilities of the language are inadequate); whether allocators are possible; the possibility of including a framework for allocators in the definition of the language; constraints that apply to allocators; additional uses of allocators (e.g. "potentially be used to implement persistent storage STL containers"); etc. --Philcha (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• The article attempts to summarize what allocators are, their history, requirements of custom allocators and common reasons for writing them, and the limitations of the allocator concept in general. I am very disappointed to hear that it has failed in these respects. decltype (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Prose

• Very jargon-laden, with zero / perfunctory explanation of terms such as "allocators"(!!!), "abstracting", "memory models", "template template arguments",etc. --Philcha (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• A valid concern that has already been pointed out. However, I do not see how I can fit explanations of fundamental computer and programming concepts into an article about a specific, advanced concept. The Mayer–Vietoris sequence article does not mention that the plus sign "+" means that numbers are added together. This is why we have wikilinks. I think one must accept that articles may have different intended audiences. Otherwise the result will be something that is neither useful nor interesting to anyone. Of course, that's not to say that there isn't room for improvement here. decltype (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Programming samples

• WP is not a programming textbook. Use of samples should be avoided if possible, and any samples used should be short. --Philcha (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• The sample is minimal. decltype (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• The sample in "Reference implementation" is WP:OR - "It is largely based on [18] with only minor adjustments". It's notorious that samples in or supplied on CDs with books often contain bugs. A WP editor's modification of code supplied elsewhere is even more likely to be bug-ridden unless supported by a summary of its testing - which would be blatant WP:OR. The editor's response at the GA review, "My personal opinion is that this example can be more or less derived from the standard's requirements and the interface of the default allocator" is a complete giveaway.--Philcha (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, sources on any topic often contain errors. By this logic a WP editor can't write prose in their own words because 1) It is OR, and 2) the source may contain an error. All my sources for example code are considered reliable, and have a reputation for being thoroughly peer-reviewed. I do not quite understand what my response is a giveaway to. What I was trying to convey, was simply: "My personal opinion [is that this is no more OR than any line of prose written by a Wikipedia editor, because] this example can be more or less derived from...". decltype (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

• I pretty much agree with everything Philcha has said above, in particular the point about what the scope of this article is intended to be, and its lack of accessibilty to the non-specialist. The lead in particular is rather poor in that respect. Is the article's scope supposed to be allocators in general, or just those included in the standard template library?

  I have just rewritten the lede, and I assume you are commenting on the old version. Naturally, it is difficult for me to objectively judge whether the new one is an improvement in this respect. decltype (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  The lead is certainly improving, but take the first sentence, for instance: "In C++ computer programming, allocators are small objects that control how the containers of the C++ Standard Library manage dynamic memory." Nothing would be lost and something gained in accessibility by simply dropping "are small objects that". Less can be more. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• I very share Philcha's unease with the modified reference implementation code; it's a completely inappropriate inclusion. I'm of the view that even if it hadn't been modifie by the article's author it has no place.

  I have already commented on this. I appreciate your opinion. decltype (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• The article is not particularly well written either, for instance: "This is often implemented as a thin layer around the C heap allocation functions, who are usually optimized for ...". Since when did functions become animate entities?

  That's very unfortunate. I must admit that I'm unable to spot the error in the above sentence even after you pointed it out. Would you mind explaining? decltype (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  "Who" is a pronoun used to refer to a person, or a group of persons, not inaminate objects like "functions". It should be "This is often implemented as a thin layer around the C heap allocation functions, which are usually optimized for ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 15:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• In my view this article does not meet the GA criteria, most particularly because of its lack of accessibility to a general reader. By "general reader" I mean a programmer unfamiliar with the necessity for memory management; remember that not all languages (COBOL for instance) require the programmer to be concerned about the mechanics of memory allocation. Also, the topic should be introduced in the lead without conflating it with OO terms and principles.

--Malleus Fatuorum 12:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly right. When I picked up the article I focused primarily on making it properly sourced and technically correct, and paid little attention to general accessibility. Thanks for your constructive comments. decltype (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My thanks too, Philcha and Malleus. As a non-expert (I never got much beyond basic/pascal), you've highlighted points I lacked the knowledge to address. EyeSerene^talk 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You've certainly done a lot of good work on this article decltype, and I hope nothing I've said has led you believe that I think otherwise. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey. While looking through the Baseball WikiProject stuff, I noticed Kevin Youkilis had just been passed as a GA. After looking over the article on a skim, as well as the GA review, I'm a little concerned about it. I found several easy to fix but blatant issues just scrolling through it, perhaps another review could be useful at Talk:Kevin Youkilis/GA1. I'm willing to assume good faith on the reviewer, it was his first one. I dunno how you get "The refs used from the internet are relaible sources." but miss the many bare links in the references, for example. (I'm not saying the article shouldn't be a GA; I'd just like to see the problems actually noted and fixed before it's called one) Wizardman 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In the first sentence of main text, "Youkilis is the son of a Jewish jewelry wholesaler of Romanian heritage", the bolded words are not supported by the source. The rest of the first para of main text has no refs. 3 as now a 404 "not found". This does not bode well. --Philcha (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone should be bold and delist it, notifying all parties in case they want a GAR. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It got nominated for FA. Well... maybe at FAC they'll fix all the problems that makes it not a GA. So I guess put my concerns on hold until the FAC fails, then we can take another look. Wizardman 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As a note, the editor who nominated this article also nominated four others at the same time. Hank Aaron, Jason Marquis and Albert Pujols have already failed their nominations, while I am about to quick-fail Ian Kinsler for many of the same complaints expressed over Kevin Youkilis. Resolute 16:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Strike that. KV5 has already indicated he's reviewing that article. Resolute 16:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

See this thread on an experimental link-up between FAC and GA. It may also be a useful addition to the nominations process. Geometry guy 11:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, I have recently found many articles where reviews are not transcluded, status not changed to onhold when appropriate, etc. The instructions are quite clear but it seems that some reviewers prefer to ignore them. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I would very much like comments / 3rd opinions on this article, especially its use of images, in particular what resolutions are acceptable for non-free software screenshots.

Please also consider my comments regarding displaying the VPIP / PFR / AF of real players. These are statistics on how often a player puts money voluntarily into the pot, how often they raise pre-flop, and their "Aggression Factor", respectively.

Article: PokerTracker
GA1: Talk:PokerTracker/GA1

Thanks, decltype (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Two articles I am involved with (Norway in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 and Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008) were quickfailed within five minutes of their reviews because the reviewer felt the sources were "blogs", an assumption he made on his own and an occasion where I was not given the opportunity to defend my sources. I did not wait almost two months for someone to decide on a whim that the sources were inadequate when I have seen other articles pass the GA criteria, even FA, using the two websites (esctoday.com and oikotimes.com) the reviewer felt were blogs. In return he told me to read why blogs aren't reliable sources and gave me the typical "it was someone else's fault that the other articles passed their reviews" response and told me that he would re-review all of the passed articles. (Wouldn't that be a pov issue to re-review every article on the subject to align with his belief?). Sourcing was a big issue for the Eurovision WikiProject and last year we decided what was and was not a valid source (discussion can be seen here) and consensus was reached that ESCToday and Oikotimes were both adequate sources. Basically, I feel mistreated and insulted by this reviewers actions and would like to utilize the second opinion option and have another reviewer conduct a new review from the start. I would also ask that the previous "so called" reviews be deleted or overwritten as they are nonsense, serve no purpose, were counterproductive, and were just plain rude. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking over at the reliable sources noticeboard, it was deemed that these two sources were fansites and therefore, unreliable. If you strongly feel otherwise, please take both articles to WP:GAR, as it was suggested. You'll get input their by other editors. We can't just override a quickfail without the issue being addressed. — Σxplicit 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was just me and the other editor bickering and an ip who told me to come here and ask for a second opinion. Nothing has been decided there and they are therefore still reliable as they were already deemed months ago. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

So please take the articles to WP:GAR if you wish to have the quickfail decisions reviewed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There is currently wording at WP:GA that suggests editors can nominate articles they have not been involved in editing: If you find or contribute to an article meeting the good article criteria, you can nominate it on the good article nominations page. Likewise, the instructions on WP:GAN are ambiguous but appear to allow it: If you believe an article meets the good article criteria, you may nominate it below.. This is different than FAC, where only the main contributors are supposed to nominate an article (or where uninvolved people should at least talk with the contributors before nominating something) and articles seem to get rejected without review if they are nominated without consultation with the main contributors. I think this is a good standard for GAN as well, since most reviews (at least, in the case of the thorough reviews I have gotten—I know some reviewers do drive-by reviews that are little more than a checklist, but I don't know what kind of review is more common) require lots of work and further editing on the part of the contributors, so it doesn't make sense for a nomination to come from someone who isn't familiar with the article and may not necessarily stick around to work on it during the review. Thus, I'm wondering if we can rewrite those two sentences listed above to specify that only involved editors should nominate an article at GAN.

(If anyone is wondering, what prompted me to post this was a recent nomination discussed at Talk:The Order of the Stick#GAN and User talk:LtPowers#The Order of the Stick.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

So what, because I don't have the time to intensely work on any individual article, now I shouldn't be able to identify a good article when I come across one? GA is supposed to be less rigorous than FA. A GAN in no way "require"s lots of work on the part of anyone except maybe the reviewer. I don't know where you got that notion; it was certainly not my intent. I nominated the article because I think it's good and at least appears to meet the GAC. I feel like I've been attacked for no reason. Powers ^T 14:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You can always leave the article's main contributor[s] a note saying "I think your article is pretty good, have you considered nominating it for GA status?" That's what I do when I come across an article that I think should be a GA. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

off-topic discussion moved to Talk:The Order of the Stick#GAN. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I see no reason why not, so long as the nominator believes it meets GA criteria, and they are capable of responding to issues raised by a reviewer. If a nominator lacks the time, resources or understanding of a topic to properly respond to concerns raised, then they are just wasting everyone's time. disclaimer: This opinion is not meant to serve as a reflection on the discussion that spawned this question. I haven't read the nom or that discussion. Resolute 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: yes.

Slightly longer answer. The good article process has always been a very open one: anyone can nominate, and registered user who has not contributed significantly can review. This spirit goes right back to the beginning of the process: see e.g., the GAN and GA pages from 3 years ago. Notice the similar wording: "If you find or write an article meeting the criteria..." A change to a long standing principle needs a good reason, and becoming more like FAC isn't one: the GA process has an entirely different culture. If nominators or other article editors are unable to respond to issues raised in a review, and the article does not meet the criteria, the solution is completely straightforward: don't list the article as a GA! Just close the review, but leave a link to it from the article talk page. Future article editors may likely appreciate finding some suggestions on how to improve the article.

Where there can be an issue is in cases where an editor nominates large numbers of articles at once, especially within one section. However, this issue seems to be fairly rare, and concerns both significant contributors and those who have not contributed significantly. Geometry guy 17:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty important that non-contributors be able to nominate for GA. Personally, one of my best GA experiences was when I nominated Fern Hobbs for GA. If I recall, I had tinkered with the article a little, but had not contributed substantially. Having a GA reviewer come along and offer a review was an excellent tool for me in seeking out some additional sources, and significantly improving the article during the review period. I think this is an important kind of interaction.

Also, in the hopefully uncommon event that a nominator fails to participate actively, I'm not sure there's such a huge concern about "wasting everyone's time." A GA review stays in the talk page history, and can be put to good use at some point in the future. I know it can be frustrating for a reviewer to have their work ignored in the short term, but that doesn't mean the work is without merit in the long run.

Like I said -- hopefully this doesn't happen too often, as it definitely isn't the sort of interaction GA was designed for. But if it does happen once in a while, I don't see that as a reason to forbid non-contributors to nominate an article for GA. -Pete (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy would, however, dictate that the person who nominates the article check to see if there is a regular contributor(s) and check with them first. It would also be preferable to only nominate articles if you are willing to address the issues. Don't create work for a reviewer that you aren't willing to tackle. Of course, there is always a chance that you won't be able to do so due to real life or the article needs more help than you can give, but one shouldn't make a nom unless they are willing to follow-through. There are too many articles in the backlog to waste peoples time this way.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I didn't mean for my original statement to suggest that GAN should be more like FAC; I just meant that I thought (judging from my experiences) that we could have better and more in-depth reviews when the nominators are familiar with the article and the issues that have come up with it throughout its development. That being said, the editors above do raise some valid points, and perhaps I shouldn't assume that the nominator (in this particular case, or in general) would not have participated in the review...but I do agree with I'm Spartacus that it wouldn't hurt for a nominator to at least check the article history and talkpage and talk to the editors who are most active at that article before actually nominating it. (As for me, I will just keep up my current habit of not nominating articles I'm not active at, and just leaving the active editors a message suggesting that they nom it.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• A "nominate only by author" rule would be an exceptionally bad idea, I feel; saying that this is something that needs to be done by primary authors... well, it really does encourage the idea idea of ownership, you know? This is Your Article; you are the person who needs to Take Steps in rating it. I see absolutely nothing wrong in a third party nominating something for GA - in fact, I think it's a positive benefit, since it's someone who isn't involved, has no investment in the article and no vested interest, saying it's of that quality and should be looked at.
• Writing to GA level is... well, it's not particularly easy, but it's an achievable standard, unlike FA which requires significant directed effort over and above Writing Something Pretty Decent. As a result, there are plenty of articles out there which are GA level and just haven't been found yet, or polished, or processed. If we do want to find these and rate them - which is the point of GA, after all - the last thing we need is to impose an arbitrary rule which would limit our ability to do that. If it turns out a subject specialist is needed to get it to that level but there isn't one involved in the process, so be it; we can mark it as B or C or the like, fail the review, and leave the notes on the talkpage for when someone decides to work on the article. Shimgray | talk | 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe asking that a nominator be at least familiar with the topic, and/or have an ability or willingness to participate in a review is an arbitrary suggestion. In fact, to me, it seems perfectly logical. The very first article that I worked on extensively was nominated at GAC by someone who hadn't made even one minor edit. I worried that it would ultimately fail, since it was rather messy and not anywhere near comprehensive at the time. After a great review that voiced multiple apparent issues, I waited a few days for the nominator to come back and make some changes -- nothing happened. Finally I decided to give it a shot, despite not knowing much about the process, and ended up doing the job myself; the article eventually passed GA, and was promoted to FA a few months later, but my point is that it irritated me at the time, and still does. No, I'm not saying we should promote ownership of articles; instead, I would rather like to see some responsibility taken by nominators. You (speaking collectively, here) see what you think is a good article and want to nominate it? Okay, go right ahead. But are you willing to help, or at least find someone who is able, take care of issues if/when they are voiced? If not, don't bother. Speaking as a reviewer, I've had my time wasted when no one is around to answer my concerns. It's frustrating knowing that you've spent time reviewing an article that no one has any vested interest in. We need less of that, and more of people who are willing to step up to the plate. María (habla conmigo) 19:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this makes sense. - we should always encourage people to be more active with stuff they nominate, whether that's working on it themselves or offering to find someone who will. But I don't think requiring them to have already been involved closely with it is going to solve that problem at all - it restricts it to a much smaller set of people, it requires those people know and desire to work with the system, and it creates a whole set of new avenues for people to argue about the rules in ways that don't actually have anything to do with the quality of the article.

It also further restricts the pool of people at GA to just article creators and regular reviewers; nominating "third-party" articles is a pretty good way of letting new people get gradually involved, and of keeping the outside community involved in the general ebb and flow of the process. If we restrict it to only article creators - who often have somewhat unusual opinions on the quality of their articles anyway - then GA[C] is at the risk of becoming a restricted club, one populated by a few active reviewers who seem to be jealously guarding their fiefdom, and giving out badges to authors. And that won't serve anyone well in the long run. Shimgray | talk | 13:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on here. I thought the point of GA was to recognize good articles, not to find articles that are almost good and get them up to "good" status. I don't see the connection between "thinks this is a good article" and "is willing to work to make it a good article". I found an article that I thought was already good and wanted to have it recognized. Should I not ask to have it recognized as good just because I don't have the time or expertise to put into making improvements that the reviewer might suggest? Powers ^T 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The majority of articles nominated for GA do need some changes made during the review, and the reviewers often suggest improvements. I don't know about everyone else, but personally I value the GA process much more for the extra set of eyes it brings to my articles than for the "recognition" they might get. For example, I have Chinese classifier at GAN now, not because I need recognition for it (I already know it's good and I don't really need someone else to validate me) but because I want it to go through a few rounds of copyediting and review before I take it to FAC. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The multiple flexible roles of GA is one of its strengths. Geometry guy 21:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. IMHO, the GAC process is one built largely upon collaborative efforts between editors. Reviews take place for article improvement, something that every article, no matter how "good" it may seem, can use. Not all good articles are Good Articles off the bat, if that makes sense. María (habla conmigo) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but does that mean that every "good" article is in reality not yet "good" and will need improvement? Powers ^T 23:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. There are very few great articles just sitting around waiting for someone to nominate them. There are a couple out there (for example, I know some editors don't believe in the GA process, so they write nice articles but don't nominate them for anything), but almost every article, no matter how good it is, needs some tweaking during the GA review; even if the article already is excellent, the reviewer will still often suggest some improvements. That's why I think articles should only be nominated by someone who's willing to stay up all night writing, editing, looking up sources, etc., if need be...GA reviews should not be near-automatic (like many DYK reviews are) and should require some love and care from whoever nominates them, no matter how good the article already was. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that approach. We need some way for people who stumble on a good article to recognize it for its quality. I thought GA was that process, but apparently it's just FA-lite. Powers ^T 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You can always update an article's quality rating to B-class if you want to recognize its quality. GA, however, is a process. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would add my recent experience: (1) I got to review an article nominated by non-contributor. I thought for myself, "Strong article, but with problems, if you can fix them - fine". He couldn't cope with technical issues and GA failed, whereas I'm sure it would be different with the true author. (2) Same non-contributor nominated another article, much stronger one (former FA), but much more difficult to cope with. I contacted the author and got a reply he disagrees with the nomination because of several quality problems and on-going disputes. I made the nominator withdraw the nomination, asked him never do this again, and stand by my point: hijacking someones work without his/her concern is not right. Besides, accepted GA does qualify as an achievement (and I feel increase in star-gaining attempts recently). This should not be granted for the work not done, unless upon agreement with the author. Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

...if these people are going around pretending that nominating an article is somehow conceptually equivalent to writing it, and they are taking credit accordingly, then there is indeed a problem. The problem is those people's behaviour, though, not the system of nomination! Shimgray | talk | 13:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Shimgray. Judging by the comments above, it looks like there are good nominators (like Peteforsyth) and bad nominators (like those that Materialscientist and Yllosubmarine mentioned); it would be undesirable to disqualify the good nominators just because of the actions of the bad ones, so I see now why the rule change I proposed above is not needed. I think we'll be fine as long as there is an understanding that if you nominate an article, you need to be around to follow through with it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

...and/or contact other article contributors, who might be able to help.

I agree that Shimgray said it well. The purpose of GA is to improve the encyclopedia in a spirit of camaraderie, in which editors seek an outside view on the quality of an article and suggestions to make it better. If some editors wish to use GAs as trophies, then it is up to other processes (such as WP:RfA) to consider the extent to which such trophies reflect the dedication of the editor concerned to improve the encyclopedia. It isn't a problem for GA to address.

So far, the GA process has managed to provide independent quality assessment for nearly 1 in 400 of Wikipedia's articles. That may not sound like much, but out of nearly 3 million articles (including dab pages, lists and stubs) it is not bad going. I hope those who love what GA is doing for the encyclopedia will keep up the good work, and encourage more editors to join in. Geometry guy 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing this here because I don't think the issue is worth a full GAR, but I still would like some outside input into a problem regarding the article Downing Street mortar attack. As a glance at the talk page will reveal, I (the reviewer) and the article's principle editor have reached something of an impasse. Although I think this article is in general excellent and 95% worthy of GA, I have a serious objection to one particular sentence that I believe represents a journalist's opinion as a straitforward fact (a second opinion agrees). The main editor however completely disagrees and has stated that he would rather the article failed GA than the sentence be changed. Therefore I am asking if people can take a quick look and comment on a) whether they believe the sentence is problematic and if so to what degree and b) whether this problem is sufficient to delay or even fail the GA nomination (which I am reluctant to do for an article that I think is up to standard on all other issues). Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is very poorly written, I'd fail it on that alone. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Examples of poor writing that needs improvement would be very welcome (preferably on the talk page).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The article's main editor certainly seems to be being a dick, so you shouldn't feel required to bend over backwards for this review. I don't think reviewers are obligated to beat themselves up over a review when editor is being uncooperative and even attacking reviewers. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember to comment on the content, not the editor. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's my point exactly. Look at User:One Night In Hackney's (the article's main editor) response on the GA review page...the reviewer left some perfectly routine comments, and then ONIH left a gigantic, multi-paragraph rant calling the editor stupid and incompetent. GA (and every other content review here, as far as I know) is a privilege, not a right, and there's no need to give that privilege to people who are going to attack other editors like that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Although the editor's rant is WP:DICKish, its victim, SilkTork, ignored and stepped back so that Jackyd101 could focus on the article. That's done, so it's best to ignore the rant.

Re the disputed phrase, "almost killing the entire cabinet"

• It's ambiguous - some were killed, while other survived? some were critically injured? AFAIK none were significantly injured, so the phrase is an exaggeration.
• Bowyer Bell p. 624 says, "It was a star-studded target: the war cabinet, ... With a little Irish luck the results of the mortar rounds could be catastrophic". I think the most that supports is e.g. "if the IRA had been luckier, several of the war cabinet could have been killed" - and "war cabinet" would have to be explained, as "Cabinet" without qualification normally means current senior ministers, but the group included a former N Ireland Secy and a senior soldier, while Cabinet members with no military or N Ireland connections were absent.
• Strictly speaking it's only one commentator's opinion since, as the editor commented (one of the fair points buried in the rant) we're not likely to see official analyses any time soon. There are a lot of unknowns, e.g. was there a possible trajectory that would have lobbed the shell through the window before it exploded? Hence I think the text should point out that this is one commentator's opinion.
• PS Google Books would only show me a relevant extract from one of the 2 books cited on this point. However, given the unknowns, I would still state that the possible catastophic conseqences are the opinions of commmentators--Philcha (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The word "some" is ambiguous. Best to replace with actual figures. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The article's main editor has withdrawn the nomination after another unpleasant message on the talk page, so I have failed the nomination. Hopefully someone else will sort out the remaining problem and this article (which is close to GA standard) can try again.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to the Wikipedia experience. Are there any qualifications to be a Good Article reviewer? Thanks, Darwin's Terrier (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no official qualifications other than that you must have a registered account (ie, not be editing by IP address). But it helps to be familiar with Wikipedia's content guidelines and manual of style. You may want to spend a few days editing articles here and there to get a feel for things. Or you could agree to co-review with someone...for example, find a review that has already started, and create a new section of the review with something like "additional comments from User:Darwin's Terrier"—that way you can get some experience reviewing and seeing what other reviews look like. Also, of course, you can read some of the articles listed at WP:GA to see what a typical Good Article looks like.

Hope this helps, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was very helpful. I wasn't sure if I had to sign up somewhere (I did join the Good Article WikiProject though) to join the team. I'll do as you suggested and take on an article (or post here) when I feel ready. Thanks again, Darwin's Terrier (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally feel that it's good to review articles where you know enough about the topic to tell whether the article is accurate and comprehensive -- but there is no official requirement for that. Looie496 (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's a good point...if I tried to review Boron nitride, for example, I wouldn't be able to do much beyond nodding politely. On the other hand, it's also sometimes nice to get a second opinion from someone who is not a specialist in your area, not so much for checking content and accuracy but for looking at style and making sure your article is understandable to everyone, especially in an article that is at risk of getting pretty technical and dense. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be best to get 2-3 articles through GA review first,so that you see how a few other reviewers work and, more importantly, you know how much care is needed to produce a GA. I've drafted a light-weight guide to producing GAs, at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Producing a Good Article. You should also do mock GA reviews on artciles you intend to submit for GA review - Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles will help. Look forward to seeing your first GA review fairly soon. --Philcha (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering ... homosexual transsexual is a interesting but seemingly tense subject area ... it seems to be on its fourth GA nom in a row in less than three months or so. I wonder if it makes sense to sideline it for a few months in hopes it stabilizes? -- Banjeboi 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can stop nominations in that way. Hopefully, it has been improved since its last failure. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Stopping a nom midway sets a dangerous precedent. Don't do that. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking for clarification not trying to set a precedent or stop anything.

March 12, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

April 13, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

May 27, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

And the same nom has again relisted. Is this the first time this has ever happenned or is there any ideas on what may be the most help to the article itself? To me it just seems this has been one very long nom process but that's because it's been on my article alert radar for several months which is quite rare. -- Banjeboi 07:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit more closely. (I know the article from the GAR which delisted it.) The May 27 nomination was a procedural close because the nominator started the review page with an opening statement about the article; while this is usually fairly harmless, I think the procedural close was a good call in this case, because this is an article where the review definitely needs to be strongly reviewer-led. The March 12 nomination was failed without a review on the grounds of instability and clean-up tags. So the article has only really had one complete review since it was delisted. That generated useful input, but ended up, in my opinion, as something of a trainwreck (this is *not* a criticism of the reviewer). My suggestion to avoid this happening again would be for the next reviewer to ask those who have recused themselves from editing the article (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen/First_mediation) to recuse also from commenting on the review page. Geometry guy 14:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful overview on this. For everyone's sake then ... would you be willing to add a comment on the top of that review itself that highlights these points? That may help be proactive in keeping the review for what it's intended. Also would it make sense to recruit some folks who may have the time and patience to work the some of the issues? -- Banjeboi 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, yes I would, as long as the reviewer agreed. Regarding the second, it would surely help to have further input, but I'm not sure how to attract interested editors beyond those already involved. A notification to Malkinann might be worthwhile when the review starts. Geometry guy 20:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outendenting)I would quickly like to clarify why I have renominated the article so many times since it was delisted (after having been listed for a long while). Geometry guy touched on the reason, I have gotten very little good feedback on the article itself there. So far the reviews have ammounted to one person in particular, sometimes accompanied by one or two others writing about how the subject matter of the article offends them and that GA staus would be WP "legitimating" the subject matter. I don't see how it could? GA status is not shown on the articles page which is all joe user ever reads (and WP just does not have the power to "legitimate" anything IMO). If I can get a review which is about the actual writing of the article itself, things I can change and still be true to the subject I will be satisfied.

I kid you not the latest comment on the talk page is from one who claimed that the article Homosexual transsexual is not neutral because it uses the term "homosexual transsexual". What am I supposed to do? That is representative of the type of things I have heard so far.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have serious reservations about this article. At the least I believe it should be quick-failed. In my immediate observations, I see that there are grammar issues and coherence problems, making the article nearly unintelligible. I have more to say about this article's sourcing and structuring, but the issue at hand is its GA nomination. --Moni3 (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to lay this off on you again... I'm trying to retire again. Would someone be so kind as to pick up the reviews of Talk:Swedish heraldry/GA2 and Talk:1st Marine Division (United States)/GA1? I sincerely apologize for the trouble I've caused you. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take the marines. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is an influx of new articles either. I think we're losing reviewers and not being able to replace them. Needless to say, this is a problem, and we need to find where we can get more GA reviewers. With what I do on this site I can't be dedicating weekends to GA work like I did this past one very often.. Wizardman 14:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also comment that some nominators, thankfully not many, have been so uncivil in responding to good faith review cooments that I wouldn't want to review other articles put forward by them. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people take constructive criticism too personally, so it is a thankless job (sometimes) reviewing GAs or even FAs. I have spent a good portion of my last few weekends here, but that is only because I have neglected my other hobbies. The problem here I think is lack of trade, too many nominators want to nominate 5 or 10 articles, but are not revewing any. If you nominate 1 article you should review 3 articles, thats my opinion. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

GA reviews should preferably (or only) be carried out by those who are competent to do so. Nominating one article does not necessarily make an editor competent to review three articles, or even one. AND, as I have reviewed about 110 WP:GANs and submited none, I assume that it entitles me to submit 330 articles of my choosing for WP:GAN. Ludicrous I agree.Pyrotec (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if the equation is to be 1 nom for every 3 reviewed, wouldn't that mean you're entitled to submit 36 articles, give or take a few (excuse my inexact math)? ;) Perhaps we should hold another drive in order to alleviate backlog. María (habla conmigo) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The shock of reading the previous comment was too much for my brain. You are correct, I now only need to submit 36 WP:GANs - must start soon.Pyrotec (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the backlog is in "trivia"/"pop culture" categories. The categories that I care about seem to be doing pretty well in terms of backlog. Looie496 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Music, movies, and sports always have tons of noms, understandably. The other two categories that I always notice are backlogged are War & Military, and roads.

As for lack of trade...I agree with ErgoSum that it would be nice for nominators to also review some articles. I don't think it would be nice to make it a rule, but we could at least urge people to review, like PR does; I think it's just good etiquette to try and help out with the backlog if you know you're also contributing to it. I personally try to have done at least 1 review for each nom I've made (although my number might be off a bit right now). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And in the meantime, we've hit 310.3 1/2 years of Mitch32 19:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Might it be a good idea to propose a rule to limit submissions to one per editor at any time? That would certainly cut down a lot of the backlog. Majorly talk 19:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a good idea, given the variability of GA review styles. Many GA reviews are very in-depth (I've had some that felt like one-man FACs), but others are just running down a checklist and seem to take less than an hour (luckily, I've never had a review like that, but I've seen them happen to plenty of other articles). If all reviews were super in-depth it would make sense to limit submissions, but if half of reviews are just wham, bam, thank you ma'am, then I don't know if it's necessary. (Of course, on the other hand, you could argue that if we limited submissions then people would have more time to do nice, in-depth reviews, which is probably true.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is totally fair to limit submissions to one per editor, either. Arsenikk, for instance but there are others, tends to submit ten or so articles at a time to WP:GAN, but he has reviewed more than 110 WP:GANs. There are other editors that produce multiple good GAN articles and also carry out good reviews. The backlog is pronounced in certain categories and not in others. If editors choose to submit nominations for categories that have a long backlog, then they will have to learn to be patient. In my experience, some GANs can be done in a few hours whereas others take a few days. It very much depends on the length and the quality of the article; and these are not necessarily directly related.Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if doing a review was easier. I've been thinking of doing a review, but I don't feel like marking it under review, creating the subpage, marking it on hold, removing it from GAN, then adding it to GA. It would be cool if I could just create the subpage, and bot would do the rest. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the subpages have made it a lot easier, especially for record keeping. I don't usually bother changing the template on GAN to on hold (kinda sad, considering I'm the person who pioneered it!) because I just worry about notifying the nominator about changes in status. I don't think the magic bot bullet will fix anything; at FAC it still takes quite a few intermediate steps for the delegates to archive/promote. As soon as Sweeps are complete I'll be back to regular reviewing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There were 1,088 to do at the end of May 2009; so we won't be seeing you soon.Pyrotec (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with David Fuchs, and I think setting up a bot is more trouble than it's worth. To be honest, the reviewing process is not too complicated once you've done it once, and I think it's all pretty intuitive (you just have to remember starting the review subpage, and marking WP:GAN so people know you're reviewing; everything else pretty much follows from that, and GAN has helpful instructions for what to do in the event that you pass or fail an article). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic crops up from time to time. In response, it is important to ask "what problem do we need to solve?" The success of GA is not a problem. Ongoing trends suggest that the number of articles at GAN will continue to increase in future. However, if the page becomes too long, we can subdivide it by topic. One thing that does matter is nominator wait times. For as long as I can recall, nominators have often had to wait a month or so. Has the situation got worse across the board? Another thing that matters is reviewer numbers: for some time we have seen reviewer growth in response to demand. Is there any reliable evidence that reviewer numbers are falling?

I would like to offer more up to date statistics, but WP:GAN/R hasn't been updated for many months. Graphs of nominations up to then can be found at File:GANbacklog-compare.png and File:GANbacklog-compare-all.png. A useful additional resource is User:VeblenBot/C/Good_article_nominees_awaiting_review. Geometry guy 23:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, it will go down. The sweeps pulled away some GAN reviewers. Once the sweeps are done, which should be soon, they'll be back at GAN in no time. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Starting up a bot is more trouble than its worth? I think too many tedious edits are required of editors around here. We spend so much time updating lists, counts, status pages, categories, etc that could be better spent doing actual work. I think you should be required to edit the GA subpage and article talk page only, the rest should be done by bots. I find updating the GA list and the GA nominations page (reviewing, on hold), to be tedious and unnecessary. If the Article talk page template can change when I create the GA subpage, why can't the GAN page update (to reflect that someone is reviewing the article/is on hold/etc) whenever I create the GA subpage? When the article is passed/failed then I can simply delete the GAN listing and thats the only edit I need to make.

The issue of GA list automation was briefly discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_12#.2Frecent_bot:_an_update recently, as the WP:Good articles/recent page is now updated by a bot. Also, in response to Pyrotec, there is no "qualification" for someone to review GAs, any editor may participate. If you nominate 1, you should review 3 articles, period. If you have reviewed 110 articles, then I think you are entitled to nominate your fair share of articles for review and take a break from reviewing... but nobody would seriously nominate 36 or 336 articles at once so I don't know what that was all about. Ludicrous, I agree. Also I don't see why there shouldn't be nomination limits, as there are already limits for PR. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 14:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ErgoSum88's comment that the "paperwork" should be entirely automated.

OTOH having seen a few inadequate reviews I think reviews should be done by editors who have been on the other side of 2-3 GA reviews that ended as passes. --Philcha (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing the comment that there are over 1,000 artciles awaiting GA Sweeps reviews, I had a quick look, and found:

• Poor explanation of the procedure for flagging up a "pass", e.g. what template to use.
• On top of that there's even more paperwork than in an ordinary nom, because a sweeps candidate does not have a single nominator and the instructions require reassessors go chasing around for someone to notify.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/Project_quality_task_force/Sweeps_worklist is not sorted by date. Presumably the oldest GAs are the ones most in need of reassessment. Ideally the list should be sortable both by date and by subject area. Sounds like a job for a bot, or at least a JavaScript. If we find that a few topic areas are not getting reassessed, we announce that no new noms will be reviewed until the sweeps list for that category has been brought back into line :-)
• I looked at about 5, and they seemed in better shape than the average new nomination. Perhaps Sweeps should switch to a basis where 1 old GA is reassessed for every 1 new GA added. That would increase the number of reviwers available for new noms. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Pass is usually ok with a simple message. Usually it's only the hold/delist that gives us trouble because people demand a longer explanation. We use a cut-off date system, that is all articles listed before August 26, 2007 (date at which sweeps begun) will be swept. Seeing that it's close to 2 years since it initiated, even if the list contains articles that are promoted on the day of the cut-off, we're not wasting resources on sweeping newly promoted GA. The sweeps have taken us longer than expected due to little activity (until User:Nehrams2020 devised a better method in May which creates the spike). Our running gag is the sweeps will finish by 2012, let's hope it won't turn into a reality. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, lets hope sweeps does finish by 2012 - I wouldn't like to see it go on any longer than that! :-) Geometry guy 21:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's obviously a very significant resource sink so far as GA reviewing is concerned, and the sooner it's done the better. I haven't looked at the numbers in any detail, but it seems to me to be another classic demonstration of the Pareto principle, with the overwhelming majority of the reviews carried out by a rather small percentage of the participants. Those productive reviewers are obviously going to be sorely missed at GAN/GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A noticeboard is proposed and live now that will potentially be a forum for content editors to discuss article writing, sources, the various promotion procedures. You can find it here: Content noticeboard. --Moni3 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

...and this thread entitled 'Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#FA/GA Boycott' may be of interest. –xeno^talk 21:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly interesting. Wrad's views are, well Wrad's views, and WP:WBFAN is clearly a very poor idea. What else is there to say? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not much. I just added a reminder that short articles are welcome at GA. Geometry guy 21:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that Zithan (talk · contribs), sockpuppet of crat/admin/OS Nichalp (talk · contribs) (now impeached by arbcom) nominated four articles that he wrote for business clients for GAN in return for money, and two passed. His most recent article is currently up at AFD as a whitewash/spam YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed MissingNo. over here. This is my first review, so could someone please look at it and see if there's any changes to be made? I'm logging off for the next 18 hours, so feel free to make any changes. Thanks, Aditya ^α _ß 14:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent first review, nice work! :) TheLeftorium 14:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear! Thanks. Aditya ^α _ß 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I just removed a nomination of Fibromyalgia. I removed it because first, the editor (Mikebar (talk · contribs)) who nominated it has not contributed to the article; second, there was no discussion of the nomination; third, this article has been quite unstable for a long time. (It is a delisted former GA.) I won't oppose a nomination if it is discussed on the talk page and editors who have contributed to the article agree to it. I am well aware that anybody is permitted to nominate any article, but that policy only makes sense if it is possible to boldly remove nominations that are clearly inappropriate, as this one is at this time. Looie496 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pierre Trudeau, an article I reviewed, has been on hold since May 26. I accidentally didn't transclude the page immediately - this was done on June 4. The nominator has not contributed in any way since the nom, but another editor addressed a few of my concerns on June 8. Can someone take a look to see if it should be passed now? If not, should I just fail it? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the same thing that led to my removal of a nom in the item above: JulieSpaulding (talk · contribs) nominated an article that she had never contributed to, with no discussion on the talk page. All that does is waste people's time. It would have been better not to have started the review in the first place, but now that you have, the best thing to do is to put a note on the talk page explaining the situation, and if nobody steps up to rescue the article, fail it. Looie496 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the nominator of Pierre Trudeau for GA hasn't been editing for quite a while, I think she's busy in life, maybe? Give it a few more days. It doesn't hurt to let it sit for a bit longer. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Brat Pack (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There appears to be trouble brewing regarding this article. I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk · contribs) reviewed the article and quickly failed it because it's not comprehensive enough and Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk · contribs) has undone his edit. More eyes are probably needed. Nev1 (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The review does appear to have been somewhat cursory and was not actually done on a review page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the removal of the failed GA banner and left a note on User:Maher-shalal-hashbaz's talk page suggesting that the review is taken to WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:GAN. Surely you meant to suggest taking it to WP:GAR? María (habla conmigo) 15:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have taken this to WP:GAR. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would be pretty useful to have around? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In what way would it be useful? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it gives feedback for one thing. This can be used by whoever nominated the GAN to improve the article before a GA review gets to it. At any rate, it won't hurt to have it.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Then any nominator who wishes to do so can submit their article for peer review. Don't see the point of confusing peer review and GA; remember that there's no rule against an article being simultaneously at peer review and GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why jump through 2 hoops? I like the idea. At least it will get some issues out of the way before a human reviewer gets to the article. I find it interesting that we can go through peer review and GAN at the same time. Aren't they both addressing similar issues? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Because GAN is specifically addressing the GA criteria. It has nothing to do with whatever any peer review bot may or may not do. Anyone who wants a peer review should request a peer review, not a GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Could a bot be coded/created to search for GA problems within GAN candidates then? Items important to GAN such as bad/dead links within reference sections, etcetera. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a bot could be built to carry out some simple GA checks, but I'd be very surprised if every GA reviewer doesn't already check for dead links. That's that's not really a fundamentally important check anyway, as it depends on what information the link is meant to be supporting, if any. I'm lukewarm about the idea of a GA-specific bot; don't really see the point, but I wouldn't object to one. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of having the peer review bot giving its opinion for every GA review. In effect, it would act as a "second reviewer" who would be able to point out any obvious script-observable problems (saving the human reviewer some effort), and in many cases ultimately improve the article quality. If I want a PR, I'll go to peer review, but a bot analysis alone would also be beneficial (and you can ignore it if you feel otherwise). Sasata (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For information, the so called "peer review bot" is actually a combination of two things: the first is a script which anyone sufficiently savy can run to generate a bunch of suggestions for article improvements; the second is a bot which automatically runs this script on new peer reviews. Anyone who proposes introducing a similar scheme for GA should: (a) be able to understand the script and adapt it to create a GA version which focuses on GA issues; (b) propose a method by which the operator of the peer review bot can automatically run the script on good article nominations; (c) ensure that this does not interfere in any way with the normal nomination and review procedures. Geometry guy 22:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask reviewers to be alert for edits like this which change section headings without discussion. The section headings here are used at WP:GA and by the GA templates, so any changes need consensus. Geometry guy 00:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A newer editor who didn't know anybetter (AGFing) "passed" Max Payne' as a Good Article with a fake review and basically just making stuff up at Talk:Max Payne (film)/GA1. Its pretty clear it was a fake review, so its been reverted and the article restored to GAN status. He also has been starting individual GARs on non-GA articles and the like. Bene cleaning up behind him and left him a note. Meanwhile, anyone up for giving this film a proper review since it is the only one really effected by his efforts (the rest were just non-reviews so just cleared and good to go)? ~cross posted to films project~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

nEvermind...admin wouldn't delete the fake review so it has now been delisted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been working hard on this for a few months. Anyone think it deserves to be considered a "Good article"?

Paper Back Writer 23 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The only means of getting a definitive answer is to submit it for WP:GAN. I don't particularly like your one and two sentence paragraphs, so I would put it On Hold for the prose to be improved but I don't do GA reviews on Sports topics. So I would not review it anyway; but it could pass.Pyrotec (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates. We could use more comments from good Wikignomes (any everyone else). Please see Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and comment here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

How's about a new GAN backlog elimination drive?

Backlog continues to grow, and this could help right about now, IMO. – (iMatthew • talk) at 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm for it. I'll join in on the reviewing as well.--WillC 13:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Anybody else...? – (iMatthew • talk) at 18:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll review at least as many as I submit... which could be a dozen in the next few weeks. But increasing turnover is good too. Sasata (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When will this elimination drive take place? — Σxplicit 19:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Will this elimination drive take place? We need to answer that first. – (iMatthew • talk) at 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the problems with my desktop are fixed by then, I'd gladly participate. — Σxplicit 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that before you start a new drive, you let the old review drive finish (hopefully by september or so) and let those reviewers recharge and/or review new nominations. Back to back drives only hurt reviewing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

←I'm assuming you mean the 2009 Spring drive, which hasn't been touched since the beginning of April. I think it's safe to say that one is done. — Σxplicit 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that was an intended reference to the GA Sweeps. –Whitehorse1 20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's right, my mistake. I suppose that makes sense, as several GAN reviewers are participating in that drive. — Σxplicit 20:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

←It has, been just 2–3 months since the previous drive. A short time. Five or six months elapsed after the one that came before that, and the one before was a year earlier. As DWF points out, excessive drives can have negative impact (e.g. participants taking on more than usual to attain a level of award, leading to temporary burnout or their taking a step back. Granted, something down to them, but which can lead to their reviewing less, all in all). Of course, reducing the backlog is always good. –Whitehorse1 20:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd be interesting to know if previous drive participants, who were not previously GA regulars (i.e., new reviewers), stuck around and continued to review articles after the drive ended. –Whitehorse1 20:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the "sweeps" were, but I'm willing to help out with backlog in some areas. I've done a few articles over the past month. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I followed the three-step nomination procedure in How to nominate an article and got stuck at: "Copy this for the edit summary: Nominating [[ArticleName]]" Where should I copy this to? bamse (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To the "edit summary" field located under the main edit-box when you edit the page. For more information, see Help:Edit summary. TheLeftorium 19:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course; I must have been blind. I hope the nomination is not invalid now. Will remember for the next nomination. bamse (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You should be fine. :-) It doesn't directly affect your article nomination, but instead, it's just an easy way to keep track of who/when an article was nominated by judging the page history. As far as I know, no bots rely upon that, it's just a recommendation so entries can remain orderly. Jamie^☆S93 19:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to Religion, mysticism and mythology, although arguably it could go under World history. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; also art and architecture could have been possible. I was not sure where to fit it, so I put it in Miscellaneous initially. bamse (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the article Lady Gaga has been nominated for a second time by Cloverfield Monsta (talk · contribs)Truth of the World: Welcome to the Show (talk · contribs), despite consensus on its talk page saying it's not ready. As an uninvolved editor, I left a comment regarding this issue, but the nominator refuses to withdraw because he has the right to nominate the article. How should this be handled? — Σxplicit 17:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of a consensus trying to force someone not to nominate an article for GAN before. Sounds like a dangerous precedent. If you don't think it's ready for GA, start reviewing it with specific information of what still needs to be fixed for it to be GA ready. Of the comments I saw on there, I didn't see much of that happening. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly not ready, in my view at least, but anyone's entitled to make a GA nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't ready, a full review should reflect that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My name is not Cloverfield Monsta, officially I have changed it to User|Truth of the World: Welcome to the Show. I am more then entitled as a user to nomniate an article. --R.I.P. Michael :( 03:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to your edit, you are Cloverfield Monsta. That aside, although agree you have the right to nominate it, the article will, at best, be placed on hold, as the article clearly doesn't meet the criteria. — Σxplicit 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Every registered editor is welcome to nominate GA articles, whether they're active editors of the said article or not. Stopping someone from nominating is a sign of ownership. End of story. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"If it isn't ready, a full review should reflect that." I second that! ...the GA review process does not consist of a debate among several other editors on the article's main talk page. WP:CON shouldn't be used to justify a majority's opinion regarding non-editorial issues. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Aw heck. I'll review it! ::puts hands in air and makes Superman "whoosh" noises:: Nominated mere hours ago and already a review headed its way. Hooray for publicity! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

whooo. I am gonna go a crazy, gonna eat my babies placenta like Tom Cruise. Just jokes. I have actually changed my name but have no idea why it has not change, FYI. 07:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverfield Monsta (talk • contribs)

Although any registered user is entitled to nominate, going against consensus can often lead to major dispute and disrupt. • вяαdcяochat 09:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

no offence but how would you know??? --Officially I am not Cloverfield Monsta I need help with this 09:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverfield Monsta (talk • contribs)

← Personally, I feel that, even though anyone may nominate an article for GAN, you should respect the views of several of the article's main contributors of not nominating it. SoSaysChappy, thank you for taking the article under review. — Σxplicit 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The main point is that it's a waste of time to nominate an article if nobody is on board to make improvements in response to the review. It's hard to define the conditions where that will occur, so it's hard to set up rigorous rules about when an article may be nominated, but that's still a key criterion. Looie496 (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cloverfield, I would know perfectly well as you have gone against the consensus and by doing so, it has in fact made a less than positive impact. I don't understand why you do not have that little patience to wait until each of us or more so, the main contributors are ready. Trust me, it will be a good article. We just have to figure the exact improvements needed. • вяαdcяochat 22:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

GAN will solve that mystery. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Cloverfield has a history of always going against consensus and doing things and then saying lets discuss. He has been previously blocked a number of times (User:Dance-pop, User:GagaLoveGame, User:I am Rorschach etc) because of continuing edit warring and personal attacks previously. This time I thoght that he had changed his ways but alas, the same hurriness and doing things against consensus is still there, while personal attack has started. The article is far from ready, the Musical style section and the last areas of the 2008-present section are messed up. The timelines have been messed up by Cloverfield himself. This is a complete vilation of BLP issues. I suggest Cloverfield to be warned regarding these things, although Im sure he will be blocked again as the personal attacks have started. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I finished the review earlier than expected. Yes, it was open and shut, but that can't be used as grounds for absolving those who were against a nomination. They make some good points, but per many of the comments above, I still feel an editor may nominate an article if he/she feels it is worthy. The only problem I can foresee would be an experienced editor nominating a high number of stubs and/or obviously poorly-written articles, "clogging the log" in the process. Perhaps some updated guidelines for nomination are in order? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I was told earlier this month that I should not make a GAN whether I felt it worthy or not, unless I was a major contributor to the piece. Although there was some disagreement with that view. Powers ^T 12:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I came across these articles - Lifeline (Stargate Atlantis), Kyle Broflovski, Stan Marsh, Fireproof (film) and Watchmen (film) - which are all tagged for second opinions in the GAN list. All reviews were commenced by the same editor (though their name has changed in the interim, from I Seek to Help & Repair, to Scarce). I dropped in on the talk pages, and immediately found some minor template problems that I've now fixed. Once I got to the reviews, they all appear to have stalled because the original editor has queried the review, and things have not really progressed. I started to look at a few of Scarce's contribs and diffs, and found a slightly strange GA process for Treehouse of Horror, and some other bits and pieces. Then I went to the editor's recent talk page entries, and noticed that issues around GAR have been raised previously with them.

I'm moderately experienced with GA reviews, but not with process and user issues that loom here. Can an experienced GA old hand and admin take a look at these and have a think about whether any intervention is warranted or whether things should just take their course. i am concerned about, amongst other things, the possibility that the GAs may get held up by the second opinion call while the nom is still in the hands of the original reviewer; and about the review quality. Any thoughts? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic is already covered above in Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Seven reviews in an hour.Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

4 Minutes (Madonna song) was recently became a GA, yet 3 refs aren't working. Surely this should at least be fixed? Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominator fixed issues. Although before an article is passed link checker probably should be used. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 09:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a link checker. And those sites drop out pretty often. Live and learn. Aditya ^α _ß 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's fine. Great to see you reviewing GAN. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The tool can be found via Wikipedia:CHECKLINKS. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As part of a merge proposal a featured list is being merged with an article. The question has arisen as to whether the result (which would probably look a bit like this sandbox version) is a list or an article. Any eyes on this matter and comments here would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would unhesitatingly deem this to be an article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The GA Sweeps process is continuing to move at a good pace, as June's total of swept articles reached 290! We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. If everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when it was first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. I am again inviting any experienced GAN/GAR reviewers to consider reviewing some articles. If you're interested please read the instructions here. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Do people keep that the incentive system for the sweeps is effective? I was thinking of whether it might be useful at WP:FAR and commented at WT:FAR. I know a lot of people at FA don't like it and think it promotes driveby reviews, but in the case of FAR, I don't think it could bring down the average level of detail. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Shh... if they know there's incentive, it will encourage them to do less-detailed reviews because more detailed ones take more time. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a GA nom in the "Economics and business" category. Being vaguely interested in the topic, I thought i would check how this was going, as it has been on hold for a long time. I discovered that both the nominator (User:Bantman) and the reviewer (User:Arsenikk) have not made any contribs on WP since late May. Might it be appropriate to declare this failed for now and remove it, since neither party is active? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting User:Bantman and User:Arsenikk about this. If they don't respond, then it would be fine, IMHO, to fail the nomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone did contact Arsenikk on the user's talk page on July 1 with no response. I see that it's fit to fail the article at this point; if either return, the article can be taken to WP:GAR if applicable. — Σxplicit 01:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case be bold and do it. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Have been bold and done it. Will leave a message at the talk pages of the two users involved. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have finished the review as failed and adjusted/implemented article history. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I e-mailed arsenikk in mid-june, and he said he's be back to editing in a few days. alas, i have heard nothing else and he's clearly not back, so i'd say do his other two he has on hold while we're at it. Wizardman 04:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, there are different issues involved here. In the case of Rio Tinto Group, both editor and nominator had gone inactive on WP. My run through GAN only found one other Arsenikk review (not two), and that was of Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. However, in that case, the nominator User:ViperSnake151, though not having responded to the review, is still an active editor. I have left a message for Vipersnake, asking if s/he wants to respond to the review points. If so, I would propose that someone (I'm happy to volunteer) take over as reviewer in Arsenikk's place, and conclude the process. If I don't get a response from Vipersnake in coming days, only then would I suggest we consider clearing that article from the list. Arsenikk has three nominations also in at GAN, (three airlines in the Transport section, two of which have not yet been reviewed). We could assume that, as per email with Wizardman, he is coming back some time, and leave them there in the queue. The only downside is that, with a big backlog of topics for review, it would be a shame if someone went to the effort to review these, only to find there isn't an editor to respond to the suggestions. Does anyone have a view on this? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is inevitable that sometimes real life intervenes and sometimes a nominator doesn't respond. I assume taht they are'nt there if I don't get a response in 7 days and then fail. No real harm done, the review points can be picked up by others who want to improve the article at a later date. I don't thibnk we should try and second guesss whether an editor is currently active, unless we have positive information to the contrary. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is unusual for User:Arsenikk to have been inactive for so long, now about six weeks. I completed and passed one WP:GAN (Eurostar) that he was viewing, as the nominator raised comments on this talkpage. I subsequently also completed his review of Spring Creek Dam. I left the other reviews. The Rio Tinto Group review is one that I am happy to complete, but it will be another week before I have time to look at it. So if someone else does it first that will be OK by me. Again, I have reviewed quite a few transport article nominated by Arsenikk, but I know that he is inactive so I will not be reviewing these nominations until he becomes active again.Pyrotec (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if this the wrong venue for this (Is there a designated GA review page?). It seems that this article has become a self-appointed GA without a proper peer review.[2] The two "uninvolved" editors [3] CommCorr (talk · contribs) and Usjails (talk · contribs) seem to be SPA's with few edits outside this article and possibly socks or meatpuppets of either Cjas (talk · contribs) or MisterMeth (talk · contribs). Furthermore, on the talk page there's a series of odd edits.. it appears that Cjas is talking to himself(???). I certainly don't agree that this article qualifies to be GA but having limited experience myself at reviewing Good articles I'd rather defer to someone here as to what action to take. Also, this brings up a point of discussion: How can we avoid these kinds of automatic self-assessments in the future? -- œ^™ 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh I just discovered Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, will try to follow the procedures there. --œ^™ 23:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I undertook a GAR and immediately delisted it due to serious concerns. I also reported contributor name User:Cjas as a possible spam username Cjas = Criminal Justice Addiction Services. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Using Facebook as reference? Yuk! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, the sources are a total mess. Also, did this even get put through a GAN? I don't even see the template. And if I were giving this thing a review, I wouldn't even put it at B for the above reasons. GA is ludicrous and A-class is asinine. Also asinine is the "High" importance. I won't claim to be an expert at rating like this, but Rand doesn't seem like the kind of person who should be at such a priority, especially in the US Wikiproject, and considering, for one moment, that it rubs elbows with Standard of living in the United States for High-importance, you can see why I'm iffy about it. Finally, this may be just me, but why does this page look like a long-length advertisement?

NOTE: Cjas reinstated the GA-class icon, calling the delisting the "July editor war" and claiming that the review was due to "two uninvolved editors". Am I seeing a possible conflict of interest? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This looks pretty bad. I searched the recent WP:GAN history, and found no reference to this article. I checked the list of Good Articles, and it isn't there. I am going to go ahead and change the rating on the article talk page and also drop a note to the user in question. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

...except someone already did it. OK! hamiltonstone (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:CommCorr started GAN again. Should some intervention be needed? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it did not appear to go through WP:GAN the first time round, so putting it up for GAN is not a problem. It can be reviewed or Quick Failed at the decision of whoever does the GAN. However, if it is incorrectly reviewed this time round some intervention will be needed.Pyrotec (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's certainly been a lot of activity. I see Jezhotwells opened a suspected sockpuppet case (which the user denied); the checkuser request was declined though. On Jezhotwells talkpage the indignant user has advised he'll report him to a noticeboard. Edited to add: The spurious report was made.

Suggestion: GA isn't Peer Review or Editor Assistance. Posting some brief points of the broad faults of the article on its talkpage, combined with removing the nomination and explaining why, might be an effective solution to the ongoing problem here however. That allows the editors to bring it back after improvements, and is perhaps what they want. If the editors ignore those suggestions, adamantly continue claiming it's of a high standard and reinstating the nomination, then intervention to prevent that disruptive activity is sensible. Thoughts? –Whitehorse1 22:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Article has been reassessed, (Talk:Rand Kannenberg/GA1) and still visible at talk page, has not got a GAN template but has not been listed at GAN, probably because the nominator does not understand the process. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought the current nomination template on the talk page was added after that GA1? Any mileage in the suggestion above d'you think?  –Whitehorse1 22:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! Double negative corrected above. Yes, but it won't get reviewed unless it it is listed at WP:GAN. I think the apparent proliferation of socks around this case gives cause for concern. This is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rand_Kannenberg_under_attack_by_http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser:Jezhotwells: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd originally been thinking of just a new section on the talkpage. I see that you've raised a matter of a possible block evasion at AN/I now. *nod* I agree. To avoid forum overlap and confusion it's probably not worth considering the above-suggested feedback for the time being. –Whitehorse1 23:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that user:I Seek To Help & Repair! has committed a lot of reviews lately (I count seven reviews in one hour). While I haven't examined the reviews in detail, I don't see how anyone can do quality reviews at such a pace. While not technically against any rules, I think this is slightly problematic, so I left a note at their talk page. Thoughts? decltype (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the review pages (for example: Talk:Stan Marsh/GA1, Talk:George (Blackadder character)/GA1, Talk:Fireproof (film)/GA1), they don't seem to be very in-depth. Just looking at Fireproof (film) alone, I see a few issues in that article than described in the review. Since you've left the user a note, I'll wait to see how this progresses. — Σxplicit 06:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The user replied here, I have pointed them to this discussion. decltype (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The user marked some as passes in the last few hours or so; though did not update the GAN templates as having passed; perhaps having been nudged on their talkpage. A quick glance shows at least one linked above using forums as sources. –Whitehorse1 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Stan Marsh was one of the articles reviewed, which I nominated. I left a question requesting clarification of the review while also noting that "length" is not part of WP:WIAGA. When there wasn't a response for five days, I looked at some of the other reviews mentioned by the OP and noticed some similar situations (much that didn't adhere to WP:RGA).

I then left this message on the reviewer's talk page. For the record, I wasn't trying to persuade or "nudge" the reviewer into passing or failing an article, I was simply reminding the reviewer that others were seeking clarification which I felt was only fair to be provided within the seven days of the "on hold" period. As the above post mentions, very soon after this the reviewer suddenly stated that some of the articles reviewed were suddenly "GA ready", though did not take any action to indicate nor explicitly state that they had been passed. On two other articles, editors who were not the reviewers went ahead and promoted them and changed the article status based on their interpretation of these posts.

Oops, seems that comment caused some confusion. To set the record straight: by "nudged" I simply meant the reviewer having been tapped on the shoulder, alerted with a loud 'ahem!', or otherwise poked in the rib to—quite legitimately—call his attention to the article review. It hadn't occurred to me that my comment might be taken to suggest slyness or subterfuge nudging. No such implication was intended. I apologise for any offence caused by my word choices. –Whitehorse1 19:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making this post as an attempt to rush anyone into thinking about how this needs to be handled (if it becomes "problematic", as the OP said suggested), but in all honesty, I wouldn't want an article on which I worked hard and nominated to be suddenly passed or failed at a sudden moment's notice after a vague review sat idle for so long and no significant changes were made to said article. I'm saying this in the hopes of creating some feedback. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the review, I think you are well within your right to be a little irked. The comments about length and "un-bias" seems arbitrary, and former WP assessments are of course irrelevant. Assuming Scarce / ISTHNR is watching this thread, I would advise them to request a second opinion before passing or failing the article. decltype (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, while Scarce claims to be "very familiar" with WP:WIAGA, I am not so sure that's a correct characterization. decltype (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, ISTHNR was my old name, Scarce is my new name (please see my user page, and open the box marked "Everything Else" to verify). I have to admit, the GAs were much harder than expected, would it be okay if I marked them for second opinions? Or just withdrew my reviews, If I am correct, only about 3 are still ambiguous. Thank You and Sorry ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 10:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Marking for 2O sounds like a good idea. Another thing you can do, is ask someone at WP:GAN/M for assistance in reviewing. Regards, decltype (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay ...I hate to say it, but this is starting to agitate me a bit. After all that has transpired and been discussed, we've come to this. I've made the reviewer in question aware of the lack of guidance in the review comments numerous times, yet the simple and vague descriptions of perceived problems just keep on coming. Comments related to the issues discussed here and above are not being responded to, and archived in just one day, while user remains active elsewhere on Wikipedia. This coming after the reviewer had to be reminded to address others' concerns with his reviews because he "totally forgot" about the seven GA reviews he had initiated. This is definitely becoming problematic, as the OP foresaw. I'd hate to see the other open reviews pending a second opinion turn into a potential fustercluck. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take a thorough look at all of this, and address anything that needs attention. I'll post an interim update here once I've taken a look through everything. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

<– Update: For the reviews being discussed, the reviewer opened ten reviews. Of these, one (Brat Pack (film)) has gone to community reassessment. Four were passed; the remainder are open and listed for 2^nd opinions, on the nominations page. On some of the open reviews the reviewer has implied the article meets the criteria, or the nominator has expressed desire for further input. The open reviews, generally, have had no reviewer activity for 8–18 days.

With two of the passes, George (Blackadder character) and Lois Lane (Smallville), there are criteria issues of source problems and possible NFC (Non-free content), respectively. I'll open an individual assessment today on the first one; if somebody could take a closer look at the Lois Lane article that'd be good—I'll try to address it if nobody runs with it.

These are the five open reviews:

• Fireproof (film) -- Open; marked as on hold for 2^nd opinion; no activity since 19 June
• Kyle Broflovski -- Open; solicited 2nd opinion offered by User:SuperFlash101
• Lifeline (Stargate Atlantis) -- Open; marked as on hold for 2^nd opinion; reviewer implies it meets criteria; no activity since 25 June
• Stan Marsh -- Open; marked as on hold for 2^nd opinion; no activity since 28 June
• Watchmen (film) -- Open & marked for 2^nd opinion; nominator desires further input; no reviewer activity since 19 June

I've asked the reviewer (Scarce) to comment here to let us know if he wishes to continue as primary reviewer on those or is happy to withdraw. Either way, all articles will ultimately receive appropriate attention.

SoSaysChappy, I'll add some thoughts to the Kyle Broflovski review you asked about, shortly, to help things along. –Whitehorse1 19:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• No response from the user after several days so left a note and reverted them to awaiting review. –Whitehorse1 23:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Whitehorse, based on your comments, I'm assuming you're saying that Lois has a NFC problem? Could you please address said problem given that there is only 1 image on the entire page, and that's in the infobox and all character articles are alloted the basic identifying image in the character infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bignole, yes that's what I was saying. Actually, I changed the comment to possible NFC problem before clicking save. Mainly since it was enough to make me think it was at least worth taking a second look at, even if the outcome agreed after a little discussion might be that it was fine.

The image seemed to me purely decorative, and not illustrating something not easily described in words (compare, say, Dalek), or used in the context of critical commentary, or being necessary to significantly increase readers' understanding of the article text. It looked as if the descriptive text "attractive twentysomething brunette wearing a black top" could provide the same information and understanding as provided by the image. Personally I think the article looks nicer with the image, but, sadly, that's neither here nor there. The 'Portrayal' section sort of ties into the image, but only loosely.

Like I say, I think the article looks pleasanter for having the image, and it just struck me as a possibility of an NFC prob on seeing it in the article; if a discussion led to agreement it meets fair-use ... peachy. –Whitehorse1 01:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Never been something extended to the infobox image for the most part. Otherwise, we'd have a really hard time trying to justify film posters, TV titlecards, or other character images, as we don't necessarily "need" them, but they serve the collective whole of the article as the one thing that represents everything (i.e. Clark Kent (Smallville) has both a collective image in the infobox, and one later in the article that is being used to illustrate the symbolic relationship between Clark and Jesus). I highly doubt the image in the infobox would be removed as "decorative", but I would love it if you'd review the article (if you get a chance) to make sure that Scarce did a well enough job given the quickness of the original GAN.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not worked with them much; I'm sure it's plausible. For film posters and such I can't help thinking they're different, as they comprise considered artist's decisions on what to include or how to portray the film or market it? The "Palpatine" you linked was FA-reviewed in 2006, to be fair. ;) (Incidentally there is a Tom Welling category on commons these days; the image in the Clark article is far more striking though. I did read its review.) Since posting my last comment I was looking online for free image candidates, as an effort to be helpful. There are a few of the actress that seem genuinely free-use here, and a further one here, with the former already on Commons. I thought I'd throw those out there as a possible viable alternative (i.e., captioned as 'name who plays x in the show') to consider or discount. Sure, if I get a chance over the next day or so, assuming it has no other takers, be happy to cast my eyes over it. –Whitehorse1 03:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as far as film posters go they are generally produced by either in-house illustrators not connected to the film or independent contractors that are even further disconnected to the film. I'm aware of Durance's free images, but the article isn't about Durance so putting a free image of her in the infobox would seem rather odd, considering she doesn't dress like her Smallville counter-part (and up until season 8 she didn't have the same hair coloring of Lois either). I appreciate the help regarding the free alternatives, but I've never come across any featured character article where the primary image wasn't of the character, but was a free image of the actor/actress that portrays them. Usually, you get the "why isn't there a picture of them while in character?" (I already fought that losing battle when I tried to tell the people over at House (TV series) that there were free alternatives for images featuring the majority of the cast (at least all of the ones who have been there since the beginning), but they insisted that it isn't the same as pictures of them "in character" (and that debate wasn't even about a character article where the infobox image is supposed to be one of said character). Plus, the articles for Chloe Sullivan (Talk:Chloe Sullivan/GA1), Lionel Luthor (Talk:Lionel Luthor/GA1), and Lana Lang (Talk:Lana Lang (Smallville)/GA1) passed (by 3 different editors) without any problem regarding the infobox image and none of those characters really have anything special regarding their physical appearance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Illustrators commissioned to put together a poster would be given a brief, and possibly early footage; they'll be allowed a certain degree of artistic licence from that, I think. I accept that the article isn't about Durance; although, the word Durance does appear in the article 28 times. The actress pics do look pretty similar to the promo shot (I mean they still show her around the same age, and broad appearance), albeit wearing different tops or jewellery (same earrings). I suppose free images of an actress who plays a character become more suited when linked, like photos taken at award ceremonies where the portrayal of the character or show is up for awards. The best approach, with non-free media, is probably to make the best possible use of it. For instance, with a photo depicting a stunt or fight scene, combine sources discussing the character's toughness and physical lifestyle or military brat background, ideally with critical analysis of its significance to the work. On the same lines, for an image showing the character's similarity of characteristic dress to previous works involving the character, you'd look for analysis of the consistency or significance of the dress within the mythos of the body of works. This thread is growing long, and general, now though. For authoritative answers gained through wider attention, should you be interested, you might consider a community discussion with notices at a discussion board covering non-free content review or such. –Whitehorse1 22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the articles be passed/failed if no improvements have been made? Some such as Paddy Bradley have been on review for a while. Please don't attack me for this I know I've been a bit annoying in the past when I nominated Asafa Powell but I've changed Spiderone (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like some progress has been made, but not much recently. Have you considered politely asking the reviewer? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No I'll leave it for a couple of weeks. From what I can see the reviewer is busy with reviewing 6 GANs at the moment. Spiderone (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Paddy Bradley, the nominator hasn't edited since May, so given that I would've failed it weeks ago, as it can always be re-nommed upon the editor fixing the stuff and returning. Wizardman 21:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note at Talk:Paddy Bradley/GA1 suggesting failing the nom now as the nominator hasn't edited since 31 May. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

See here where the nominator wants to withdraw due to insufficient time to address the review points. I haven't seen this before but it seems to imply "fail"; can someone point me to a WP policy etc. on this so I know if it means an outcome of "fail" or if some other process applies in this case? PL290 (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should let the user get his/her wish. Perhaps he/she's timeline-o-phobic. I am, a little. Could still become a good article eventually. Nicely detailed review btw Hekerui (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as you have started the review and the GA1 exists, it will need to be closed and the only way that I have found of doing that is to mark the article talk page as "failedGA" and remove the nomination from the WP:GAN page. It's clear from the GA1 page that its a "technical" failure due to the nominator agreing with the reviewer that the article is to be withdrawn prior to a sentence being given.Pyrotec (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Once the {{ArticleHistory}} is built, the {{FailedGA}} outcome will be described in more accurate and neutral terms as "not listed". An unsuccessful GA nom is rarely a failure: often the article is improved by the process, or directions for further improvement are indicated in the review. The article is just not ready to be listed as a GA yet. Geometry guy 21:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I should probably have posted this here before. RfC on the reliability of sources such as ESCToday, oikiotimes is open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, this editor is randomly doing "GA Reviews", except the reviews he are doing are less than useless, they are outright damaging, encouraging policy and MoS violations and dismissing references by only going on number rather than quality and existence. His "reviews" are causing a lot of headache (and heartache) for well-meaning editors whose articles are being randomly passed and failed on this guy's seemingly obscure whims. He passed Max Payne as a GA, when it clearly failed the GA criteria and I had to GAR it and fail it (since an admin wouldn't allow me to "reset" the GA by clearing his bad one out). He has now failed The Day the Earth Stood Still, submitted by the same editor who worked on Max Payne. Wanting to avoid the issue, they asked me to check the review. As you can see at The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008 film)/GA1, the comments are useless, and seem to be the opposite of what he marked as pass/failed. He passed it for prose while saying it needed work, and failed it for "only" having three images! His review doesn't really even seem to match the article at all. Finally, he failed the article after 4 days because his spurious issues were not "fixed". I checked his contribs and found he'd also done a review of X-Men Origins: Wolverine that gave "suggestions" that would have harmed the article by encouraging editors to add "at least" five to six non-free images, demanding a soundtrack listing, etc[4]

Because of the issues, I'm posting here first to request that we clear both GAs and "reset" them so the articles can be properly evaluated. On the X-Men one, I've already cleared the page since he hadn't passed/failed yet, but would like to obtain consensus to delete both pages fully and basically reset to having never happened. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We can't "reset" them but I have started an individual reassessment of The Day the Earth Stood Still. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of Cinema's suggestions are downright policy-breaking. This includes encouraging editors to upload more non-free contents[5], counting on the # of references but not the quality of it[6], and more. Going back to Max Payne (film), it was just barely passing B-Class[7] If Cinema continues to make controversial reviews, we should take some action to stop him from doing so in the future. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

User:AnmaFinotera and myself have added notes to User:World Cinema Writer's talk page. I have suggested that I will raise an WP:RfC on this editor if this behaviour continues. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have placed The Day the Earth Stood Still on hold and informed the original nominator, jst a few dead links to sort out; I have failed X-Men Origins: Wolverine - too many issues to sort out quickly. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for tackling both of those. Hopefully he will heed the warnings this time, though from his history, so far, doesn't seem he pays much attention to any of them :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In the Transport section, I have some concerns with the GAN's of User:Arsenikk. He has not edited Wikipedia since May 24 and has three GAN's sitting in the section. One of them, Coast Air, I reviewed a while ago. Another user implemented some of the changes, but there are still others that need to be addressed. In addition, there are two other unreviewed GAN's, Cargolink and Teddy Air. Since he has not been around for an extended period, I am wondering what should be done with these three GAN's. Dough4872 (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, if I do not hear from the nominator or someone else who is prepared to respond to reviews, within ten days or so, I fail the GAN. It can always be brought back, no one dies. If someone does appear and explains that they are busy or whatever, I am lenient, but I would say three weeks is tops. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been over a month with Coast Air (June 15). I personally felt that it was not right to fail the article because most of the unresolved issues were relatively minor, however, it may be the most appropriate thing to do in this case. But what should be done with the two unreviewed GAN's? Dough4872 (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

They should stay in their place. If someone starts a review and if User:Arsenikk fails to respond, then they can be failed. the review itself would still be helpful. Of course, I would hesitate to review myself if I thought User:Arsenikk wasn't around. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Arsenikk's absence is why I skipped reviewing those two articles. Dough4872 (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sad, I hope he comes back...he was a good writer. I reviewed Gardermoen Line by him awhile ago... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a second opinion on Talk:Obstacle problem/GA1 as I find the terminology a little dense and my maths is not up to it. Any takers? I have asked at the Maths project but no response in a week. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll give an opinion there, but it probably shouldn't be the only other one. My math is way rusty as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, those are helpful comments on explanations. I hope the nominator turns up, I've had no response so far. I'll give it another week or so. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Geometry guy for your thorough critique. I have placed the article on hold and left a messafe at the nominator's talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Geometry guy 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The nominator asked me to fail it as they realise it will take some time to get into shape, so I obliged. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The educational assignment GAN's I announced last month are here. There will be six articles (list) that will appear under Wikipedia:GAN#Culture_and_society. I realize that most if not all will be fails (a half-and-a-month summer course is just not long enough...), but I'd appreciate it if the articles were not quickfailed, but properly reviewed (as painful as those reviews may be :D). The goal here is two fold: students improve Wikipedia (and indeed the articles which started as missing/stubs will be start/B/C by the end of the next week) and in return, they learn how to edit a wiki and Wikipedia, and (hopefully) acquire valuable skills and get advice from me and you :D --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I started on Talk:Reborn doll/GA1. How much time to they have left? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A week. You can see the course stages and deadlines here. In any future editions, I will make certain deadlines obligatory in grading, this time the grading is being done at the final deadline, and unfortunately, despite my advice (and optional extra credit for accomplishing tasks ahead of schedule), most groups are behind deadlines :( Live and learn, I guess - sticks are needed in addition to carrots, and that's a fact. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics popped up at FLC, but nobody over there seems to think that it is a list. Should this article exist in its current structure? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an article with tables. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 22:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be a list if it documented the evaluation scores of each bidding city, but not in this format. Resolute 22:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Like this? Felipe Menegaz 00:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In promoting Crucibulum I noticed that Crucibulum laeve already exists. They both cover the same topic. I notified the editor, who wrote both. Should I put a merge tag on or what? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I did put a merge tag on the articles, as there is a great deal of overlap. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Could anyone take a look at Talk:Watchmen (film)/GA1? Someone there has been waiting for a response for almost a month. It looks like Talk:Superman Returns/GA4 has been waiting for over a month, unless I read that wrong. BOZ (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried pinging the reviewer(s)? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Watchmen GAN was one of a large cluster started by a newish user; after complaints and non-responsiveness from the reviewer, most were either reassessed or unmarked as under review (e.g. I reassessed one, gave feedback & help on another, others helped), with this explained to the reviewer. Effectively the nomination is part of the backlog awaiting a reviewer. I had placed a note on the nominations page ([8]), but it seems to have been removed. There's a thread on it in the last archive, called 11 reviews in 1hr or something similar. (I don't know anything about "Superman Returns", or why its page history shows it was moved.) –Whitehorse1 14:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I'll relax anyway... I didn't realize there were even older requests waiting to be reviewed. :) BOZ (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have received a note on my talk page concerning reviews done by thw above editor, specifically Talk:Hard Target/GA1 and Talk:Vampyr/GA1. I concur with User:Erik that these are not good reviews. I have notified User:World Cinema Writer of this discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Both nominations remain in the nominations list at WP:GAN with no indication that they are under review. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Adverse coments about the "quality" of this WP:GAN reviewer's reviews seemed to "strike a chord", so I searched and found these comments User_talk:World_Cinema_Writer/Archive_1#GA_Reviews dated 11th July 2009.Pyrotec (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how editors who frequent WT:GAN have handled unqualified reviewers. Is there a process to overturn such reviews, especially based on one's history of minimal review? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You, or anyone else, could envoke a WP:GAR on those articles, either as an Individual Reassessment or as a Community Reassessment. If the articles are found to be non-compliant, the article's GA-status can be removed - either immediately or after a period of On Hold to allow editors/ original nominator time to correct non-compliances (see Talk:Akureyri, for instance). Pyrotec (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand this, but I'm asking what happens if the problem is persistent. If there is no sign of improved quality in ensuing reviews, is it not possible to dismiss future reviews from the same editor rather than deal with the red tape of undoing his inexperienced judgments? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these two articles has actually been promoted - as I said above they still are waiting in to the to be reviewed list and it appears that User:World Cinema Writer hasn't actually said they are GA or promoted them so WP:GAR isn't appropriate. It is probably open to anyone else to move in and complete the reviews. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We've just relisted some that received inadequate reviews before. I think we let them keep their place in line, instead of moving them to the bottom. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Any registered user may review articles - that editor is a registered user. Comments have been left on that user's talk page without any comment from the user. Well, it is possible that the user regarded the first set of comments as agressive and chose to ignore them. Ideally, that editor would accept a mentor and undertake any future reviews in conjunction with the mentor; otherwise, there does not appear to be an solution to the "problem".Pyrotec (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page (along with Jezhotwells) to reply here, and pointed out some ways for him to improve reviewing techniques. After the prior reviews I was surprised he went on to do more. A second opinion on the two reviews will help to deal with those, but he should wait to review again until he has further experience and familiarity with the criteria. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we add some nice links to the GA criteria, or maybe a quick summary of the criteria, so when we create a subpage is has some helpful links. Probably GA, GAN, and GA criteria? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Those things could be added, but they may clutter the page, so demand for them is needed before they are implemented. Geometry guy 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest why isnt the GA Process more like the FA process where more users opinions are involved. Clover345 (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I can only think it's because there are too many nominations. I do prefer FAN even though I've never succeeded before. Spiderone (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Articles already sit here for 2 months, if multiple people had to look at it then it'd double to 4 easily. No one wants to have an article sit for 4 months. Wizardman 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not necessary. GA is a substantially lower threshold, intentionally so. It's not "FA lite", and we like it that way. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely that makes it no different from a standard wikiproject assessment. Clover345 (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that GA reviewers are generally independent and not involved in any goings on at the projects. --Philcha (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

GA values multiple users' opinions, but these are not always provided at the same time or on a single footing: consensus is reached through multiple reviews rather than a single review.

GA is very different from FA as it has different goals, one of which is to make inroads into the millions of Wikipedia articles that are crap and make them at least acceptable. This requires a process which scales with the growth of Wikipedia. Such a process has to be lightweight: it should not involve multiple editors unless they are needed; GA does not have a director—individual GA reviews are closed by the initial reviewer.

But to answer your question another way, any editor is welcome to contribute to any GAN review: a good GAN reviewer will act as a director for that review and take account of your comments. Disagreements can be resolved through good article reassessment. Geometry guy 22:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

YouTube is semi-protected based on ongoing vandalism. There's no particular assertion that any edit warring or other content dispute is ongoing, but it's been my understanding that fully or semi-protected articles would be ineligible to meet [{WP:WIAGA]] criterion 5, stability. Is that still a widely held view? If so, would anyone oppose a common-sense exception in the case of such a high-profile article? Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the GA criteria states that stability covers content rather than vandalism, so if vandalism the reason for protection I don't see a problem with YouTube being a GA nominee. Nev1 (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, but the presumption had been that if IP editors are locked out, there might very well be good faith content disputes that are being suppressed by the anti-vandalism settings. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is preventing an unconfirmed user from disputing an aspect of an article on its talk page. I would say that lacking any reasonable expectation that there is a content issue of significance, to simply treat the article as if it wasn't protected. Resolute 22:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. In particular, basing review decisions on presumptions is not a good idea.

Protection issues are helpfully informed by looking at the article talk page. For example, if there is a history of unhelpful IP edits behind semiprotection, then such protection does not amount to instability. If instead valid debate is articulated on the talk page, and there isn't any consensus, then this suggests instability. Geometry guy 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it was semiprotected (indefinitely, but later lifted) at the time it was first rated as a good article, in early 2007. It was delisted a year ago, at which point it had been semiprotected for a full year, but the review at that point didn't seem to worry about the protection status. If we're careful to check there aren't any outstanding contentious talk-page issues which aren't being addressed in the article, then I think it should be okay to pass that point - after all, the quality of the article really does exist independently of its current protection status! Shimgray | talk | 22:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll proceed with that guidance then. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I encourage reviewers to add their input on reviewing guidelines here. Geometry guy 23:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone intervene here on this review of my article? Its on Day 6, and if someone doesn't do something, it'll fail because of personal sourcing issues, and I don't remember that being GA criteria. I actually fixed everything by the criteria and he isn't helping the cause. This is also getting a bit out of hand when it comes to tempers.Mitch/HC32 23:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A note: it has been failed and renominated. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And more drama is starting over it, see relevant user's talk pages - User talk:Amadscientist and User talk:Rschen7754.Mitch/HC32 13:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Why bring it up here? Tell Rschen7754 to move on and to stop attacking the reviewer, and we can all put this behind us. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Telling the reviewer the problems with his review != attacking the reviewer. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

After he admits that he made some mistakes, hammering him with repeated comments that amount to no more than "Why don't you admit that you're stupid?" is, most definitely, attacking the reviewer. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I said at all. I informed him that it is clear that he did not know what he was doing *in the realm of GAN* and suggested that it might be a good idea for him to not review GANs for a while. He did not admit the severity of his mistakes all compounded together, and I had to reiterate it. But really, this is all water under the bridge as the conversation is long over. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I ask you consider raising a concern on the GAN talkpage instead should you have concerns in the future please, Rschen7754. Thank you. –Whitehorse1 23:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, though Mitch brought it here and it was over 24 hours before anybody said anything. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I opened an individual reassessment on George (Blackadder character) over sourcing concerns. It's been open a while now, and I've lingering doubts over whether to pass it. Other concerns included a really very light reception section, around 3 sentences. I suggested material for expanding, as well as for possible post-ga improvements. I asked on the 19th asking the nominator to check in, but heard nothing back. He's since gone on vacation. It'd be great if someone with some reviews under their belt would please take a look and say what they think. Any takers? –Whitehorse1 23:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing, your original concern, seems reasonable now, and I'm not too surprised at the thinness of the Reception section for a character in a comedy series. I would though be a little more demanding of the prose quality for an article of this length. I don't find this acceptable, for instance: "Although a new series or special has not been made, discussions have been made by the creators of the series". There still seems to be a residual mixing of Br and American English as well. Is "trousers" a word commonly understood in the States? Much of the prose seems rather awkwardly written to me, but if the worst is sorted out the article probably just about scrapes through I'd have thought. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. Mmm, the jarring Brit-American English switching came up in the review. I think most instances were fixed ... then an IP came along the next day and changed pants back to "trousers". I went & just wikilinked "pants" as a workaround. The nominator seems to prefer American English. I suggested a few sources for beefing up the Reception section, though the nom didn't seem to feel much could be made of them. I know what you mean about the prose; there's some awkwardness over tenses still, though it looks better than it did. Taking what you said to heart, I'll probably pass it later today, and leave any suggestions as ideas for future improvement. –Whitehorse1 17:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the licensing of the black and white photographs said to come from the Orange County Archives in the San Juan Creek article. I've raised my concern during the review, but I'm not sure it's been adequately addressed. Some, like File:SanJuanCreekAtGanado.jpg have the source given as:

Photo courtesy Orange County Archives; photo sourced from Flickr. The description reads "There are no known copyright restrictions on this image. All future uses of this photo should include the courtesy line, "Photo courtesy Orange County Archives."[9]

The licence though claims them to be in the public domain, which I don't think necessarily follows from the sourcing statement.

Others such as File:SanJuanAtGanado2.jpg give the source as "Photo courtesy Orange County Archives", and again claim the image to be in the public domain, for which I see no evidence.[10]

A second opinion from anyone a little more au fait with US copyright law than I am would be very much appreciated. Right now I'm mindful to fail this article because of these image issues. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

They don't look public domain. The photographer would have to release them, I think. Or, maybe the OC archives had a photographer on staff, and now they're choosing to release them on Flickr with a PD license? Doubtful. Federal stuff is public domain, but state stuff usually isn't. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

By "no copyright restrictions" it implies that it is public domain. I can remove them if you want - I have already removed two. Shannon1^{talk contribs} 20:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced by the present licensing, as it seems to depend on an unsourced statement on Flickr, which is not even mentioned in some of the images, such as File:SanJuanAtGanado2.jpg. If Orange County Archives have released these pictures into the public domain, then where is the evidence that they've done so? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Per the article count on WP:GA, there are currently around 7,118 good articles on Wikipedia. Wow! That's quite an increase! Compared that to 2,585 featured articles, and we're at over twice as many GAs as FAs.

While I realize that most people around here are most concerned about the high backlog at WP:GAN than anything else (currently there are 228 nominations, 180 unreviewed), I am still concerned about how this rapid growth is impacted the overall quality of GAs coming out recently. After all, we just passed the 5,000 mark in January. I have noticed an interesting uptick in the number of rather shoddy GA reviews recently, and stuff going back to WP:GAR. I would personally rather have a GA review take a little bit longer instead of more little green plus logos added to the talk page of more articles,... Dr. Cash (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the 5000 mark was passed in September 2008. Geometry guy 22:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd rather have my nominated article wait awhile for a decent GA review, than to receive a rushed, check-in-the-box one. JamieS93 ^{be kind to newcomers} 22:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you'd assume that "most around here" are more concerned about the backlog than the quality of review. I'm not in the least concerned about the backlog for instance, and never have been. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Once the GA backlog elimination drive is complete some solid GA reviewers will be recycled back into the GAN pool, as well. Any suggestions on how to drive more attention to making competent reviews, especially for those new to the process? I know that I did some piss-poor reviews back in the day (many of which I've delisted at sweeps), and I'm pretty sure that's a common thread. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess by "GA backlog elimination drive" you mean GA Sweeps, which has obviously been a major drain, although hopefully in the end worthwhile. I'd really like to see a concerted push over the next month or two to finish that project so we can all get back to GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Malleus and Dr Cash) Nor me: high demand suggests a good product :-) The 2:1 GA:FA ratio was discussed in May 2008 (15 months ago) when it was reached. I have the opposite viewpoint to Dr Cash. GA is not a substitute for FA. Whereas the latter is the ultimate benchmark requiring enormous care and quality control, GA is the only process in the encyclopedia that stands a chance to make an impact on the encyclopedia's main problem: among its articles, 2 million or more are crap, and don't even comply with policy. FA stands approximately zero chance of dealing with this before the year 10000, whereas the GA process can and does scale. Consequently I disagree with any proposals that would hamper GA's ability to make inroads into this mess. Geometry guy 22:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sums it up nicely. A few poor reviews have caught the eye recently, but I'm equally concerned about the tendency of some reviewers to demand FA-like articles at GAN, which I really think is counter-productive. When an article is good enough, it's good enough. Let FAC be the final arbiter, that's what it's there for. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• "(currently there are 228 nominations, 180 unreviewed)" Ha! I wish the backlog was that light :) Wizardman 22:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Are we reviewing less, or are people nominating more, or both? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

    Generally both, but we don't have detailed recent statistics since WP:GAN/R has not been operational since 25 March. An alternative indicator is the growth in GA numbers: see WP:GA/S for the data and graphs. Monthly growth has generally been increasing, but has dropped since the Feb/March backlog elimination drive this year: monthly growth, averaged over the preceding 12 months, is currently the same as it was in January. Geometry guy 21:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did the bot stop running? Is there some way it could be restarted? It was providing very useful information. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot operator is no longer an active contributor and changes in the Wikimedia software caused the bot not to work. Attempts have been made to encourage the operator to fix what is a fairly minor issue, but they have so far met with no response. Geometry guy 23:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently, reviewers with experience in the following subject areas are needed the most, as these categories have the highest number of nominations:

• Theatre, film, and drama - 63
• Sports and recreation - 55
• Music - 50
• War and military - 50
• Literature - 22
• Biology and medicine - 17
• Politics and government - 16

Dr. Cash (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's 56 sports ones now, sorry Spiderone (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sports and theatre are always above 50 it seems, but music and military are surprisingly high, they're usually half that. I guess that's where the backlog's coming from. Wizardman 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I never change the project ratings when I either list or delist an article as GA, on the basis that I don't know what what standards each project has adopted and I don't care to take the trouble to find out. This is particularly so when delisting an article, as how can I judge whether project X thinks it's a B or a C, perhaps that project doesn't even use C.

From time to time though I get berated for my "laziness", so I'm curious to know what others think, particularly those reviewers involved in delisting articles. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not just take a guess and change the assessment yourself? The worst that will happen is that someone from the project disagrees and changes it to something else; most of the take you'll be saving someone else the effort of doing it. Sasata (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should I have to guess? Normally this happens in the context of GA Sweeps, so the projects would each have been notified of the review. If they can't be bothered then why should I? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Normally I change them when delisting. If I'm listing the article I pretty much always set the banners to GA-class, since I see that as site-wide not project-specific. It might affect project/ga statistics if unchanged; I don't know.

Most projects, those that aren't moribund, assess purely with the WP:ASSESS 'version 1.0' scheme. A few projects have customized that grading, though most of those only use custom importance levels. The remainder generally have an Assessment link on their project page with grading scheme information. It depends whether you want to search for a custom grading scheme, to account for those rare cases. One alternative is changing the banners to Unassessed-class.

For the most part I change it to 'B' or 'C', finding most're usually reflective of that. I suppose changing an article to C-class or Start-class after delisting could be received angrily, viewed as a kick in teeth by the authors. Another point is an article might have sufficient sourced information on one aspect, meriting 'B' for the architecture project, but 'C' on another, say religion. I think expecting GA reviewers to research and consider an article against multiple projects is unrealistic.

I wouldn't like to see changing project ratings become mandated. If anyone dislikes a new rating they can always change it. Berating the reviewer over the assigned rating would be unreasonable; they're reviewing under GA, changing a project rating, when it is changed, is just an aiding housekeeping effort. –Whitehorse1 00:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict) I always change the project rating to GA after promotion (when I remember to do so), unless it is already A-class. However, given that many articles have seriously deteriorated over time, I always find it better to blank the project ranking of an article when delisting it. This allows people from the project to make a fresh independent decision on the article's quality after the "trauma" of delisting from GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

When I put in the ArticleHistory templates in for promoted GAs, I always upgrade the project banners. However, some projects don't recognize GA-class (or FA-class for that matter), such as WP:CHEMICALS. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting suggestion Jackyd, simply put the ranking back to "unassessed". Certainly I'm not prepared to look through every project's criteria and do their individual assessments for them. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what GimmeBot does after an FA has been delisted. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the way to go then, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I've been downgrading them to b or c as I see fit, but I never thought about just leaving them unassessed. Takes a plain question to make ya'think, I guess. *Putters over to sweeps* --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been downgrading to B or C, likewise. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I always downgrade a delisted GA to B (sometimes C, if it's really bad, but most are downgraded to B). It seems to me like a lot of Wikiprojects don't mess around with these ratings too often, and those that do are free to recategorize it as they please. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Here Alan16 accuses me of original research because I use actual criticism that is respected about a major poet and he doesn't have access to the sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources be online. that is not a valid objection. The vast majority of books are considered RS. It's not even required they be in English. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I suggest that User:Ottava Rima takes this to WP:GAR where this can be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to use that process - it seems to be used only for de-listing GAs already listed. Any insight? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the sources either; but the viewer is obviously incompetant at reviewing WP:GANs. It's not a failure for Orignal Research.Pyrotec (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Its other role is providing more eyes for reviews where a disagreement cannot be resolved between the editor(s) and reviewer. And where's he getting 5 sources from? There're 10 reference works, which presumably informed the breadth of the article. A suggestion of complementary online linking is one thing. The concern over sourcing from offline material is a view I've seen before; I don't care for it. –Whitehorse1 14:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The GAR was open by Malleus. I'm glad people with more experience in this process are around to help out. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this straight, I never failed it because of all the offline sources. I did suggest that online sources wouldn't go amiss - a quick search on Google reveals numerous useable sources. And "Ottava Rima" I never accused you of original research - I said that the number of sources looked scarce. In general, I do not think it is a worthy GA. If you all disagree, you can disagree civilly - "Pyrotec", I can only assume in that in all your greatness, you were new to GA reviewing once. Although if making observations about another's ability to review, I will observe that you, "Pyrotec", have passed quite a few articles within the scope of the numerous WikiProjects you are part of. That's the sort of thing I'd avoid. And remember, this is just an observation. Alan16 (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"what therefore feels like original research" and "Large parts of this article absolutely stink of original research" are rather straight forward accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No they are not. "what therefore feels like original research" is saying that I don't think there is enough sources and too much can be mistaken as original research because there are not enough sources. Alan16 (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Original research means that it is not sourced or comes from a source. Multiple sources would not make it more or less original research than having one source. It is also standard not to double up sources that say the same thing simply to add more sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said it is OR, I said it appears like OR. Alan16 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What you said was "Large parts of this article absolutely stink of original research". There's nothing in there about "appears to be" OR. I agree with Ottava, you made a pretty straight-forward accusation. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be quite new to GA reviewing, so perhaps you're unaware that the only restriction on reviewers is to avoid articles that they have themselves worked on. Uninvolved project members usually make good reviewers, as they're likely to be somewhat familiar with the subject matter. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"What therefore feels like OR" clearly says that the because of the number of sources it appeared like OR. I am aware that that is the only restriction. And I'm not accusing Pyrotec of anything, but uninvolved project members are not going to be the most objective people - they're going to want to see article on the subject matter of the project, reach good article status. It isn't a case of familiarity with a subject, it is a case of objectivity. I feel that if I went around reviewing anything relating to WikiProject Novels (a project of which I am assistant coordinator) my objectivity wouldn't be the same as if I was reviewing something completely away from that subject matter. Alan16 (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a member of the WP:GM project I can say with some confidence that you are categorically wrong. Most projects want their articles to be the best they can be, and that's certainly true of the GM project. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Alan16. The list of articles that have reviewed at WP:GAN can be found here User:Pyrotec/GA_reviews and the list of articles that I have reviewed at WP GA sweeps can be found here - Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps/Running total. It can be seen that I have passed and failed articles within the scope of WPs that I have joined; and I have passed and failed numerous articles within the scope of WPs that I am not a member of: quite a few seem to be WP:GM. You will find evidence, if you care to look, that nominator's consider my reviews to be somewhat "demanding", but I don't expect that you will find many that claim my reviews lack of objectivity. However, as we are discussing objectivity, my statement on this page said "I don't have the sources either; but the viewer is obviously incompetant at reviewing WP:GANs. It's not a failure for Original Research", yet on my talkpage it is changed to "idiot" and later on the page it is changed to "he was not simply saying I was inexperienced, he was saying I should not review GANs. This was not constructive criticism like you're suggesting. This was "get lost from GAN"". I see from your talkpage that you are 17, well almost 18, perhaps when you reach 18 you will be more WP:civil and behave more objectively; and for someone that states "If I am ever in a stressful situation I walk away, the best solution. Anything else will almost certainly inflame the situation. That has always been my policy and always will be: walk away from the situation; give it a day or two; then go back and try again. If the break has not made a difference then just leave it and try and get someone with no opinion on the matter to deal with it - nothing is worth raising my cholesterol level for - I intend to live a long life", you have a funny way of "walking away".

You are perfectly entitled to do WP:GAN reviews, provided that they are accessed against WP:WIAGA. However, in future I do suggest that you reconsider doing any reviews on articles that only envoke book references that you do not have access to, if you intend to fail them because you cannot verify them; and refrain from making unobjective comments such as "Large parts of this article absolutely stink of original research, and so this article does not pass GA review".Pyrotec (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As I have said numerous times - I did not fail it because of the sources. You said "this user is clearly incompetant at reviewing GAs" - you can cite WP:CIVIL all you like, but that is not a civil comment. That is not exactly inviting to review more nominees. Alan16 (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright guys, I think Alan16 has been sufficiently hazed. Thank you, Alan16, for your interest in the GA process. While this particular article appears to need a community reassessment, your volunteer effort and willingness to participate in such tasks are appreciated. If you are still interested in the GA process, perhaps myself or one of the regular reviewers can be of assistance providing a second opinion or reinforcing a conclusion. Alternatively, you can assist me in my review of Talk:Cherry Poppin' Daddies/GA1 (I am very slow at fact-checking and copy-editing). --maclean 19:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Alan16 dished out more hazing than he might have received; but it is nice of you to make this offer.Pyrotec (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also on Ottava's side. In fact, so far everyone's on Ottava's side. Alan16, for your own good, I suggest you should step aside for now and read up Wikipedia:Reliable sources before coming back and do more GAN/GAR. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm with maclean on this. The response here has gone beyond WP:BITE. In fact, the very existence of this thread is completely inappropriate. Rather than trying to discuss the matter on Alan16's talk page, Ottava Rima went there on the offensive: "Give me one reason why I shouldn't go to the GAN talk page and ask for you to be topic banned?" Ottava Rima then started this thread to demand a public outcry. Why not try to initiate a civil conversation on Alan16's talk page? Why not just go to GAR? Why decide that the best course of action is to try to make him look stupid in front of a bunch of GA reviewers? But Ottava Rima got exactly the desired response. Rather than direct Ottava Rima to take one of the two proper courses of action, rather than politely try to explain the original research policy, Alan 16 got "the viewer is obviously incompetant". Seriously? At a time when there is thread after thread discussing the growing backlog and the need for more reviewers? Yes, I agree that Alan16's review was in error. If the issue had been calmly discussed, maybe he'd re-read the OR policy from a different point of view and review another article with a better understanding of the criteria (perhaps even go back and fix up the review in question). What incentive is there for him to do that now, after finding out that people will be after him with guns blazing if he makes another honest mistake (and I would hope that everyone involved can see that this is an obvious case of someone reviewing an article with good intentions and making an honest mistake...just as almost every reviewer has done at some point, I'm sure)? There is no need to immediately assume bad faith and uncivilly bite a newcomer to GAN. On the flip side, I didn't bother to read through all of the discussions that are now strewn across multiple pages, and the comments here lead me to believe that Alan16's responses might not have always been ideal. I know that I can get defensive when I'm feeling attacked, and that seems to be the case here. With that said, there is never a blank check to fight back, and it seems as though WP:CIVIL was broken on both sides. Can we not just have apologies all around and move on? Seriously, the article is now at GAR, so this is a moot point anyway. Alan16, if you decide to review another article in the future, feel free to get in touch and ask me to look over your review. I would be more than willing to look it over and provide some feedback regarding your assessment of the GA criteria. GAN is always looking for people who want to help out, and if you're willing to work toward a good understanding of the crieria and accept some constructive feedback, your assistance would be an asset here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The GAR is now providing useful feedback on the article. Move along please, ladies and gentlemen, nothing to see here, move along... Geometry guy 11:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gary, accusations of original research are very serious and they did not belong on that GAN especially when there was clearly not such thing. Those are offense attack statements and directly violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. He could easily warrant a block for such comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, I never accused you of original research. I said that there were 10 lines of text on themes with one citation - which I did not think was enough - and that it would therefore appear to be original research. I've never said: "This article contains original research", I have always said that there was information which could have been mistaken for original research - this was in no way a personal attack. Also, I would ask that if you truly feel that I deserve a block, you do something about it, because I am fed up hearing about your indignation. And, as GaryColemanFan said, you could have went about this in a better fashion. Either try and get me the block you seem to desire, or just leave this alone - you're probably going to get the GA status you wanted in the first place, and this is no longer helping anything. Alan16 (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

One final word from me on this matter. I would strongly advise you, Alan16, to avoid using phrases such as "Large parts of this article absolutely stink of original research" in any future reviews you may undertake. It's difficult not to see that as a straight-forward accusation, wouldn't you agree? --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is probably the wrong word choice, but everyone seems to have forgotten that I said: "I'll explain more below", and I then go on to explain that it would appear like original research. Alan16 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone was to say that you appeared like a rapist, would you or would you not be offended and think that they were accusing you of impropriety? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to leave this now Ottava, the point's been made and the GAR is underway. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I know we've discussed this before, but it seems to be getting bad again--we simply cannot seem to ever get current. Is it time to reconsider "encouraging" nominators to start reviewing articles by prohibiting new submissions when there is a substantial (200+) article backlog?

Alternatively, is it time to give priority to those nominators who are net reviewers (e.g., more cumulative reviews than nominations)--full disclosure, I fall well into the "net reviewer" category. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. So there's a backlog, so what? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure what you mean by full disclosure, but I don't like the idea of limiting the number of nominations at GAN. Articles will eventually get reviewed if they're on there, and preventing editors from nominating articles might put off editors from nominating, and I mean even when there's isn't a huge backlog. Nev1 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, goodness, no. Closing nominations is a really counterproductive idea - it suggests GA is a restricted set, rather than open to any article which meets the requisite standards. There's already a fairly clear "queue" system; if you wanted to make the backlog fairer, then putting more emphasis on first-in-first-out is the best way to go about it. Shimgray | talk | 18:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think the decline in editors and editing is hitting the reviewing part, but not the submitting part. We only gained 27 GAs in July, when we normally gain maybe 200+. At some point, the process will break down if the backlog gets to big. And as this discussion show, the consensus model we use to make decisions isn't going to produce anything but the status quo. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The GA Sweeps project is in its final phase, and is still diverting significant reviewer effort from GAN. Until that's finished and things have returned to normal it's a bit too soon to be worrying about a breakdown in the process. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Prohibiting new entries would definitely be counterproductive. A more practical idea would be to require that you review another article for every one you nominate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have, and that's the core of my second idea. Since the idea of stopping noms appears widely unpopular, is there a way to "flag" nominations submitted by editors who have themselves reviewed a number of GAs? That's probably a pretty hefty effort to ascertain. Jclemens (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see the attraction in an abstract sense - and I say that as someone who doesn't review many - but I can't help but feel it would lead to far, far too much drama and bickering and complaints about how to define the threshold, and what counts, and the Principle Of The Whole Thing... and, in the end, be a lot more trouble than it's worth. If people want to cherrypick articles to review based on the author or the nominator, rather than the topic (which is the usual reason people pick-and-choose) then that's fine, it's their call and they can review whatever they want. Putting in a formal two-tier process, though... it's just going to end in tears. Shimgray | talk | 19:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I could see the advantage of selectively closing nominations on some of the categories in which there are over 50 nominations. Or maybe not really a hard-and-fast close, but posting a caution template message saying something to the effect of, "This category currently has a large number of nominations. If new nominations are submitted, they may not be reviewed for more than 30 days. If you're familiar with the GA criteria, please consider reviewing some of the current nominees." Dr. Cash (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a little flag that says how many GAs submitted, and how many reviewed. Just do it on the honor system. Maybe add it to the submission template. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm:

• Malleus' comment addresses the fundamental problem, lack of reviewers. I hope his optimism about GA Sweeps is justified by events.
• Jclemens' suggestion to "flag" nominations submitted by editors who have themselves reviewed a number of GAs is feasible in terms of mechanics - a bot could trawl through the history of WP:GAN seeing how many unique articles each reviewer has reviewed. However it's an incentive to do poor-quality reviews. Even without skimping individual reviews, it's to easy to game this approach - I can see a few strategies to get "reviewer credits" for minimum effort. No, I won't describe them, in case Jclemens' suggestion is adopted and I want to use a few :-)
• Dr. Cash's suggestion to put banners looks attractive at first sight, but:
  • Our categories look pretty arbitrary, for example I happily review biology articles but would not touch a medical article because I know the medicine half of "Biology and medicine" has special rules, for very good reasons.
  • The number of articles in a category doesn't matter, what's important is the wait time. For example "Biology and medicine" usually has a fairly short queue but I've had 30-day waits for most of my nominations in that category. Theoretically a bot could compute the average tme between nomination and sign-up for review from the current list at WP:GAN.

Sorry for being so negative. I'll try to come up with some more positive ideas. --Philcha (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That gives me another idea. I think nagware banners are just fine, and maybe each category could have a bot-generated banner which says something to the effect of "Based on past history, an article nominated now will be reviewed in x days y hours. You can help by reviewing other articlea ahead of yours in this queue!"--with appropriate links to the revieing guidelines, etc. Anyone feel like coding that? Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• My reviews are extremely thorough and take a lot of work for people to meet the standards (especially for larger pages), so I tend to avoid reviewing works unless I know the individual and they will not get upset by such a review. If anyone is in the backlog and wouldn't mind such a review, they can contact me and I will be sure to devote a few hours into looking at their page. I can schedule about 6 in for the rest of this week and then more on the weekend. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• To me it looks like there is mostly a lack of reviewers in certain areas. For example in my area of expertise linuistics and anthropology there are very few candidates. I don't for example review soprts or meteorology related GA's because its outside of my area of expertise and interest. It seems that some wikiprojects spew out GA's while others hardly ever nomnate. I would suggest that the best thing would be to actively recruit reviewers form those wikiprojects that have most backlogged GA nominees. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Saqib Ali and Curt Anderson were both nominated by BlackThor (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited in more than a month. A few days ago, I left him/her this message, to which I've received no response. Both articles are clearly not yet at GA quality, but also don't seem to meet any quick-fail criteria. The by the book way of dealing with these would be to conduct a review and place the articles on hold, but I can't muster much enthusiasm for doing a review when it seems overwhelmingly unlikely that the points that I raise will be addressed. Should we remove them, or should I just leave them there for some other poor sap to review? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Pedro thy master has nominated a couple that they haven't worked on, and aren't going to pass, but don't meet the quickfail. There's probably a lot of articles on here with 5-10 uncited paragraphs, and it seems a thankless job to review them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

One route I've considered is opening a review and giving a very superficial explanation of the problems, with a promise to provide a more detailed review on request of the nominator. If no such request is forthcoming after a week, fail them on that basis. Thoughts on that approach? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That does work, but it can't be done to a lot of articles at a time, since some of the users will have a lot of questions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) IAR--or rather, make up new ones following common sense. Give them a partial review of the obvious deficiencies, place it on hold for 1 week, and then fail it if those initial deficiencies aren't corrected, or give a more thorough review if they are. Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Back when I had the time to do them, this was the system I used on GA Sweeps - I was getting fed up with providing extensive reviews for articles no one was watching, so I just left a short but clear notes warning that the article was deficient in X areas and that if editors wanted to save it they had seven days to let me know. If they did then I provided the review and the article was usually brought up to standard. If they didn't I was free to delist after seven days without wasting time on a review no one read. This system should work just as well for GA nominations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask if there are any unwritten rules as to the length, or shortness rather of a GAN. Would an article like John Dudley, 2nd Earl of Warwick be too short, even if everything that is known about such a person is included (and well referenced, of course)? Thank you! Buchraeumer (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that'd be OK, if it can't be expanded Spiderone (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RGA says to beware of awarding an article GA status because "it appears that the article is as good as it will ever get". An article may have all that is known about a subject in it, but if it does not meet the required criteria then it should not be awarded GA status. Alan16 (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC).

I think Dudley would be OK. The "good as it gets" rule, in context, is referring to "references to improve an article to Good article standards," which do exist and are in the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where you are getting the "referring to references" stuff. WP:RGA states: "Beware of the several temptations to pass an article that does not meet Good article criteria. For example: It appears that the article is as good as it will ever get." Either way, I was not commenting on the article mentioned, I was answering the point that the original questioner raised about "even if everything that is known about such a person is included". Alan16 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your original question is also the answer to the issue you raised above. An article simply has to meet the GA criteria, which say nothing about article length. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Alan16 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is a biography on his father. Such full length biographies normally cover quite a bit of detail about children. More sources 1, 2, 3, etc. It might be hard to distinguish which instance is of him and which is of the father, as both were Early of Warwick with the same name. Good luck. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. The biography of his father was just my starting point for this question above, as I now have it, and was thinking of using it for better referencing. But: the material for the son is even less, as a result of consulting the most scholarly book available. So, the article got already shorter! Buchraeumer (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You aren't restricted by one source. If other sources say something that one source does not, don't shrink it down. If there is a conflict between what some sources claim, create a section and discuss it. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of length, I nominated the TNA Legends Championship a while back and it is pretty short but I've included all the information I can to stay within the policies and all that is known as well. Would it be considered too short though it is fully sourced? I would like to know, so I don't waste anymore time on waiting for a review and it failing because it is too short though I don't think it is.--WillC 19:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well does anyone think it is too short?--WillC 23:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Shortness/length is not a GA criterion. However WP:LEAD is, and is often used to help decide if short articles are good, or to suggest improvements. In this case, you might try trimming back the second paragraph of the lead, expanding it into a separate section on the process, and adding a short paragraph on the history to the lead. You could mention both the first and most recent champion in the lead to summarize the latter sections. I think if you understand the intention of WP:LEAD you will figure out a way to make the article look better and feel less nervous about nominating it. Geometry guy 23:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The question isn't "Is it too short", it's "Does the article adequately address the main aspects of the topic", as per criterion 3. My own view is that the article looks more like a list, and of course GA doesn't cater for lists. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if there is ever 10 champions, the table will be broken off into a list as per a consensus established at WT:PW. I'll take both of the comments to heart and try to fix them.--WillC 01:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And not demonstrating comprehension of basic GA requirements or issues of style and writing. See GA review for Münchausen by Internet. --Moni3 (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, he has failed it impressively fast. Did not notice that at first. Off to GAR I go. --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As a elatively new GA reviewer I would like some advice about how to proceed with bthe review of Che Guevara. After the review had started a couple of editors reiterated previous concerns about the article's neutrality. They are of the opinion that the article should include more of the negative views held especially within the exile cuban community. This might lead me to fail the article on the neutrality criteria, however there are two reasons that I have not done this immediately. First I am sure that an article about Che Guevara will always attract comments from editors who either think that he is not glorified or vilified enough. I don't know whether this should mean that an article about a controverisial topic that meets the other GA criteria can never be a GA because neutrality concerns are bound to be perpetually raised. Secondly in this case as a reviewer I don't really agree with the neutrality but believe that the article does a very good job of presenting facts neutrally and sourced to reliable sources. It is mentioned that the judgement of his actions have been both negative and positive - it states that the positive view is predominant - I think this is correct but have no objective way to determine this - I must trust that the editors who have reviewed all the sources have been able to make this assessment correctly. So what should I do? Pass it even with on going neutrality concerns? Or fail it and concede that some articles may simply never be stable enough to be GA's? for not I have taken the stance that if the present neutrality concerns are not resolved within a week I will fail the article, but because of the articles otherwise high quality I would feel bad about it.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

From a quick look at the edit history, I'd fail on the basis of criterion 5 without even considering the questions of neutrality. There's been edit-warring on the article as recently as yesterday. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed--Quickfail criteria are for your own sanity, so you don't review tons of refs and whatnot just to find out that the pictures aren't done right or there's ongoing edit warring. Be sure to check them first, it'll let you focus your efforts on articles that are much closer to promotion to GA. Jclemens (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

yesterdays edits were not editwarring - those are the two nominators colaborating. I'll probably fail it monday then if it hasn't gotten a lot more stable.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if they're concerted improvement, the issue is whether the article changes day-to-day. If you review one article, and then someone comes along and adds a whole 'nother section to it, it might then fail GA criteria. While this is much less common than edit warring (can't say that I've ever seen it, myself), the is stability not harmoniousness. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Points taken.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To give you the ?benefit? of my experience, failing an article due to lack of stability can lead to a lot of trouble. When I was new to GA reviewing, I picked an article from the list. It had been listed at GAN for four days, had quite a few edits per day, and had changed considerably from the time it was nominated. I felt that demonstrated a lack of stability, so I failed it. I was then told from many sources that good-faith improvements to the article don't count against it in terms of stability. Although the nominator had listed it at GAN before getting it up to GA standards to get a good place in line, I was told that is an accepted practice. I was, apparently, "absolutely wrong" and "overly bureaucratic". When another editor came along and offered to pass the article without any review at all, I objected and was told that I was being unreasonable. In the end, it was essentially moved to the front of the queue and passed with a one-line review in order to counter the injustice that I had done. At any rate, I just wanted to point out that the stability criteria for GA are vague and that different editors get very defensive of their personal interpretation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with GaryColemanFan that one person's edit war is another's constructive collaboration on an article of high WP community interest. Edit warring at its simplest is easy to spot, but there are of course more complex situations. I just had a look at the article and the most recent edit history. My advice is proceed through the review and use your judgement in exercising the GA criteria, as in a normal review. If the article is being actively edited, but the edits are (i) not a war and (ii) not significantly altering the core nature of the article (eg. whole new sections being added, or a major rewrite of language), then I think it is stable enough to be judged on its merits. My advice would be different at Feature Article, but that in my judgment is good enough for GAN. You might also wish to ask for a second opinion at GAN (see the instructions near the top of the page). I am happy to come in as a second reviewer to do this - you could ping me at my talk page if you wish. You or other editors can check my GA reviewing history here if you want to assess whether I would do a reasonable job. On the question of neutrality, my very quick scan suggests the article is in the right ballpark, and this should not be a problem, but I would need a proper read to form a definite view. Apart from suggesting quickfail, I thought Jclemens made some good points - check the image stuff and other easier things before getting into the harder stuff of textual detail... hamiltonstone (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Hamiltonstone has the right idea, and is quite nice to offer a second opinion. I guess the general thing is, can an article about a controversial subject pass GA because there will be people on both sides who think it is POV? I think an uninvolved editor going through the GA process is about as good as we do, and we have to trust their judgement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 5: footnote 4 says: "Vandalism reversions...good faith article improvements (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold." E.g: they should not be failed! From personal experience I know that it is nearly impossible to stop editing an article one has intensively worked on for many months abruptly. This is absolutely no question of getting a more advantageous position in a supposed queue (I don't see this so much as a queue, because not everyone is able to review any topic of article). An artcile may be substantially "ready", and then, reading still more literature that touches somehow on the subject, you find a still better source for a statement in your article, or a further aspect that should be mentioned, and so on. And you must take into account that some articles pass half a year in this "queue" until they are passed or failed (I have seen this lately with Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians, Swedish heraldry being another disheartening case). Buchraeumer (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The new phrasing was put in by the editor who disagreed with my review. He didn't like the criteria that I used, so he rewrote them himself. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if Theatre, musicals, opera, and ballet could be separated from television and movies on the list. Right now, they are all together at "Theatre, film, and drama" but they have very different sets of theories and would have different types of reviewers. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that a problem? Any reviewer can review whatever article they want from the list. Geometry guy 16:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is frustrating to have to dig through pages to find theatre. I, like others, would know about opera and theatre but not movies. They are very different groupings. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am glad this has been raised. Ottava's proposal is one I support. I also had a related concern/question - 'dance' is not mentioned in any of the subject headings. It raised for me the question of what is involved in changing the headings, or subdividing them, as suggested by Ottava. Can a discussion on this talk page lead to a restructure, renaming or subdivision of headings? Would an editor need to then go through the GA list (not the GAN: I mean the list of actual GA articles) and manually divide that up (not too hard)? Or are there other implications - embedded links, bots, stats generating programs etc that would get fouled up? Anyone know? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

See here. –Whitehorse1 02:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I too am glad that this has been raised. The current structure is not clear, it doesn't match the structure on the GA page which is also somewhat lacking. What problems would be caused by such a restructure. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We can do whatever we want, we just have to disucss it, since it effects multiple pages and templates. I was given the go ahead a while back to split up the TV episode section in WP:GA, and it was a lot of work, I have to admit. Opera is probably a lot easier, although it depends on the final groupings. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, FWIW, my proposal would be that the same set of headings be used at WP:GA, WP:GAN, and as the topic / subtopic categories used in the templates on the talk pages of GAs and GA noms. As the number of GAs is going to keep growing, we need a range of headings that will accommodate that growth. When WP has 50 000 GAs, the lists under the current headings will be well out of hand. I am not sure what the foundation for the existing headings is. For simplicity one would wish to retain them to the maximum possible extent. i was going to suggest using the Library of Congress classifications until i looked at them, and after several attempts still could not even find dance at all. They are a wierd hodge-podge in terms of conceptual 'levels'. I could not find anything immediately obvious at GA talk or GA project that sets out the origins or foundations of the criteria currently in use. Anyone around with a bit of institutional history who could advise on this? Areas in which the GA listings are going to get too long appear to be:

• Performers, groups, composers and other music people
• Recordings, compositions and performances
• Songs
• Films
• Live action television episodes
• Animated television episodes
• Video games
• Conflicts, battles and military exercises
• Road infrastructure
• Organisms

Some of these are easily subdivided, others not, but I think we might really benefit from the skills of a professional librarian-editor, to help ensure we use categories that the outside world will be used to; which will make for familiar standard patterns for editors; are comprehensive (eg. the dance problem I and a previous editor have mentioned); and are appropriately expandable. Anyone know someone who could assist? Of course, this is a bit of a long-term process. I'd be sympathetic to a 'quick fix' at GAN per Ottava's suggestion :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As Peregrine Fisher says, we can do what we want as long as we discuss it and are consistent about it. Let me summarize briefly the current intended structure of the WP:GAN and WP:GA pages. WP:GA is a hierarchy with topics, subtopics and subsubtopics and the templates reflect that. Because GAN only deals with around 200-400 articles at a time, it doesn't needs as fine a division as WP:GA (where there are over 7000 articles), so it only uses the top two levels: each subsection concerns a subtopic, and the subsubtopics are listed at the beginning, linked to the corresponding part of WP:GA. Sometimes things get out of sync because editors make good faith changes to one of the pages without discussion, but every once in a while someone (e.g. me) checks that the two hierarchies are in sync.

Proposals to split subsubtopics are easy to handle because they primarily concern WP:GA and have little impact on WP:GAN. Changing subsection headings is also fairly easy, such as adding "dance" to "theatre, film and drama" if editors want to do that. Reorganizing subtopics is more problematic, and needs a good case. For instance, why is the issue of finding a handful of theatre and opera articles amongst the television drama any different from finding a handful of articles on card games amongst the sports articles, or rail articles amongst transport? Should topics of minority interest (in terms of the skewed demographic we have) be pulled out? I'm not convinced it makes sense to do that, but if large numbers of reviewers think it does make sense, then we should seriously think about restructuring what we currently do. Geometry guy 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How about making it a requirement to review one article for every article nominated? --Sherif9282 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, but it has been decided that some people are better writers than reviewers. It would also be almost impossible to patrol (do other editors just delete nominations from editors who have not reviewed an article? if so, when? on sight? if the nominator hasn't reviewed an article within "x" days? does a quick-fail count as a review? what about a review that is failed without a hold?). It also brings up the question of whether this would result in quality reviews or just people going through the motions. On top of that, many people have stated here that they don't think an editor should perform a GA review until going through the process with two or three of their own nominations first. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How about we just stop worrying about this backlog? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Echo Malleus above. Many of us steady reviewers are busy with the reassessments and sweeps; if you're experienced at that sort of thing, jump in. In two months we'll be recycled back into the main pool, as it were, and wait times will decrease. After that we can fret about the backlog again. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If consensus will grant me my above proposal then I can clean out the plays, ballets, and operas from the backlog and allow other reviewers to focus on tv shows. That happens to be one of the largest backed up areas. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you need consensus here to do that. If you want to clean out the plays, ballets, and opera nominations, then review away. But I don't think we want any specific requirement to "nominate 1, review 1" -- this will likely just increase the number of inexperienced GA reviews and possibly decrease review quality at the same time. You'll likely just see more drive-by reviews by people simply passing something quickly so that they can nominate more.

I do think, however, that we should pay more attention to the on hold time and the overall time it takes to review. I've recently seen a few GA reviews that were initiated in May or early June that were still on hold just last week. This is simply too long. I think most GA reviews should be able to be accomplished within a 1-2 week time frame, going into a third week if the reviewer and primary contributors are working well together and agree that the article should be able to be promoted within three weeks. But if it takes longer than that, and I think it might be evidence that reviewers are being a bit too picky. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that reviewers are being "too picky"? Perhaps it is more a case of nominators being too slow to undertake corrective actions and/or reviewers being somewhat indecisive in concluding the review and award a 'pass' or 'fail' decision.Pyrotec (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have any specific evidence that they're being too picky (I only said, "I think it might be evidence", but more research is needed obviously. But I have noticed a couple of reviews recently that were taking 2-3 months to complete, which is too long. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No no, my proposal above is the one directly above this section - to separate out the section that lumps theatre with television. It makes it difficult for me to find plays and other works that I know about among characters for television shows and movies. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus. As for the suspicion above that reviewers might be a bit too picky, I can put up with considerably less pickiness but I do wish that reviewers (and, er, writers) understood the content of the articles and thus were capable of seeing gaffes that don't belong in a Start-class article, let alone in a GA. But no, sometimes they agree on bizarre misunderstandings that boggle the somewhat better informed mind. Here's an example explained.

As it is, the GA procedure seems hugely inefficient to me. Consider this humdrum exchange:

The Chicago Tribune describes the productions resulting from his processes as lacking complexity or depth.

Would be good to say "However, " at the start.

O.K.

Why the hell didn't the reviewer just stick in "However, "? (If he/she'd added This is but one example of many sentences that would result in much more coherent paragraphs if started with a "link word" that would be different.) With exchanges on trivia like that, no wonder there's a backlog.

Alas the GA-reassessment sweep also allows the awful (or risks doing so). Consider Talk:Jacob_Riis/GA1. None of Jezhotwells's doubts is objectionable. But he called it "stable" when the stability was that of a stagnant pool of dodgy sourcing, rippled only by a series of puerile changes by, I presume, dimwitted schoolboys. Discrete problems aside, as a whole this was (and remains) at best a feeble article on this most interesting person. (I can't blame Jezhotwells, who's obviously up to the ears in GA reassessment work and no doubt gets a lot of flak from people guarding their articles, yet remains polite and amicable.)

'Scuse the rantlet from a jaded ex GA reviewer. You're doing a good job but there should be more of you. Unfortunately a recruitment drive is likely to bring some highly unsuitable people. How about an informal drive: each of you emails three others? (To the charge that this would be undemocratic, well, it does nothing to dissuade others from signing on.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I will almost always make minor grammatical revisions myself as I see them while doing a GA review. If I start making too many, however (e.g. 2-3 minor changes per paragraph or more), I will note in the review that the article does not pass criterion 1.a. and that the article needs a good copyedit first. I think reviewers should be encouraged to make minor grammatical changes as needed in articles, either there's too many to be done, or changing the grammar would drastically change the meaning of the sentence. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I make "minor grammatical revisions" whether I'm "encouraged" to or not, and I agree that every reviewer should. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Cashman has a point. It's certainly a courtesy to do some prose fixing yourself (it certainly saves time in the long run), but there's a valid worry about changing things too much. I know when several editors helped copyedit Halo Wars I had to clean up after them because they started twisting phrases for readability that weren't supported by the citations. So it's a bit of a middle road that requires communication between reviewer and the main authors. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting is a difficult and undervalued skill. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole point is that copy editing is not supposed to make major changes and add new content (see linked article). It's supposed to fix minor things, like formatting, grammar, and spelling -- improving readability. As long as reviewers stick to this, tweaking things within Wikipedia's manual of style and guidelines, it shouldn't be a major problem. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Any editor can promote, right? So if there is an article that is stalled in the process because the original reviewer hasn't commented on the page, but it appears that all the concerns have been addresses, a new person could review the article and existing discussion and promote it, right? Thatcher 00:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It is up to the editor who opened the GA review. It says that somewhere in the "rules". Any registered editor can nominate an article, and any editor can review an article. But once an editor has opened a review, it is up to that editor to make the final determination, regardless of what other editors say. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me where that is, because I can't find it. Also, what happens when the original reviewer drops out of the process? How long does the nominator have to wait? Thatcher 01:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I am very bad at locating "rules". I can't find it either, but I am 100% sure that is the case. The point is to get away from an FAC like "support" and "oppose" voting-like procedure where a "delegate" is needed to weigh in and decide. If the nominator is not satisfied with the results, that editor can either (preferably) renominate the article at GAN or apply for a community GAR. If the reviewer deserts the article and doesn't complete the review, the article's nominator should post on this page regarding the situation, and someone will fairly quickly address the situation—at least that has been my experience. Geometry guy (talk · contribs) is the one to ask for any ultimate GA questions that require an authoritative answer. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Condom is listed as wanting a second opinion, but the second opinion was posted to the review a month ago. The reviewer has not posted to the review page in the last 23 days and has not answered a post on his own talk page for 3 days. I went to the review thinking it needed a second opinion but all the issues raised by the first reviewer seem to be answered and I can't find any new concerns of my own. Thatcher 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In such a situation I would recommend posting on the GAN talk page, and/or posting on user:Geometry guy's talk page, for instructions as to how to proceed.. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The last "Where are we with this?" message posted about this on the original reviewer's talkpage was only this afternoon. Given that, it seems sensible to wait a short while. –Whitehorse1 02:00, 20 August 2009 (Struck, was 17th.) 02:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my confusion, but isn't this the GAN talk page? Thatcher 02:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If the reviewer has gone awol then I'd say that ignore all rules applies, and that you should use your best judgement as to how to proceed, and close the review if you think the article meets the GA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That was my thought too, although I'll wait a couple more days. If GA is about "no bureaucracy" (which makes sense) then it should also be simple to dispense with this situation. Thatcher 02:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Thatcher. I was following the link from my page and did not realize this was the GAN page. Stupid of me. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have little to add, just to summarize really. GAN reviews are intended to be unbureaucratic. That means in almost all cases the reviewer who starts the review is the one who closes it. Anyone else can comment (article editors, other reviewers), but the initial reviewer has final say: if this decision is unacceptable to other involved editors, then GAR is available, but the unbureaucratic intention is to avoid it in almost all cases. I hope this is fairly clear in the instructions on how to review a nomination. If it isn't, please suggest clarifications.

However, it often happens that reviewers go AWOL or decline to complete a review. In that case, common sense, courtesy, and the primary goal of improving the encyclopedia obviously apply. The whole point of WP:IAR is that when there is a good reason to ignore the rules, ignore them, but please make sure there is a good reason (as there seems to be in this case): excellent advice has been provided above by editors who understand these principles very well. Geometry guy 23:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just saw two posts mildly anti User talk:Nickj/Can We Link It on its talk page. I strongly encourage its informed use. Used wisely, it is a very valuable tool. People need to be trained in tiny little things like appropriate wikilinking — things experienced editors take for granted. [There are legitimate differences of opinion as to how much wikilinking should be done, but all agree that common words or general terms not closely related to the topic at hand should be skipped]... I have repeatedly stated that GAN is the appropriate forum for this kind of education (see my user page). Tks.Ling.Nut (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting a 2nd (or more) opinion on this GAN. The main editor and I have a fundamental difference of opinion on criteria 3a (it addresses the main aspects of the topic), and are unlikely to resolve this between ourselves. Thanks in advance. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm GA-reviewing Phineas and Ferb, which cites a podcast 15 times. If a book were cited I'd expect page numbers. I don't intend to listen through the podcast each time I want to check that a point is verified. The editor insists there's no way to provide a route to the required points, e.g. by % through the podcast - especially as I don't know how long it is without listening all the way and the editor just describes it as "long". I guess similar issues occur with DVD commentaries. Any suggestions? --Philcha (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Audio and video sources are acceptable as citations, provided that they meet WP:RS guidelines (e.g. a "video-blog" by some random person on Youtube is not acceptable, but a video clip from a news organization like CNN or MSNBC would be). if a text-based source is available, then that would be preferred. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it standard in these cases to provide an exact time reference? I've seen that at FAC's when editors cite DVD commentary. Sasata (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur: mm:ss referencing is standard in such cases. Jclemens (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's unreasonable to expect readers or reviewers to sit through what could be a lengthy talk waiting for whatever it is that's claimed to support the material. A bit like citing a book, without giving a page number ... which, curiously, often doesn't even raise an eyebrow. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly (perhaps presciently) enough, {{rp}} already supports mm:ss formats. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For this specific podcast, neither time nor percent is used once so ever. I've suggested on the nomination page using general location (i.e., beginning, middle, end) but is there any other way? The Flash ^{talk} 15:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

After a try-out, I now think podcasts are hopeless as a source of verification - see Talk:Phineas_and_Ferb/GA1#Podcast. Comments? --Philcha (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(new user butt-in) I don't think podcasts are useless. Problems with people adding material not found in the sources are endemic to any type of source, podcasts are just generally longer and harder to check, but ease is not a reliable source criteria. Also, to whoever mentioned it above {{rp}} is useless for timecodes, unless I'm mistaken, as it places a colon directly before any content. Martin Raybourne (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I planned to review the article Miss Meyers, but after the (callous) assertion here that I wasn't going to be fair in my review, I've decided I can't objectively give it a review at this point. However, the the GA nominee template on Talk:Miss Meyers still indicates that "An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article" even though that's no longer true. I certainly can't fail the article, because a) I haven't given it a full review and b) it would give an appearance of impropriety per the assertion linked above. Is it okay the way it is now, or does the template on Talk:Miss Meyers need to link a new GA subpage?

And I hope it's clear why I can't review the article now. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it disappointing that, rather than reply on the GA review page or on your talk page, the nominator went directly to User:Malleus Fatuorum. This seems to be yet another chapter in a long series of nominators who bypass the appropriate channels in an attempt to build up a group of sympathizers to chase away reviewers. I agree with the nominator that the initial comments were outside of the GA criteria, but I would hope in such cases that the nominator would contact the reviewer to discuss the appropriateness of the review (or perhaps wait to see what the actual recommendations will be before jumping to a conclusion). Looking over the article in question, it appears to meet the criteria. Indeed, Ealdgyth is quite a good article writer with a thorough understanding of the GA criteria. The optimist in me says that, since another reviewer has stepped up, we can let things go now. The realist in me, however, says that the coming weeks will bring countless more alternating sections of "The backlog is too long. How do we get more reviewers?" and "Please help me chase away a GA reviewer." GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the situation is thankfully resolved, but I'm a bit soured on reviewing articles, at least for the time being. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You and me both Nosleep, so who's the winner here? I am sick to death of GA reviewers ignoring the GA criteria and reviewing according to their own personal preferences and prejudices on issues like article length or citation density. As far as I'm concerned that makes a mockery of the GA process, and if it's tolerated, as it appears to be, then I fail to see the point of GA at all. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Leave me the hell alone. I've done nothing unprovoked to you. I made one off-the-cuff comment - I did not "review according to my own personal preferences" I merely expressed my personal preferences. I did not have a chance to fully review the article before I came across you and your slander. If you'd care to notice, I was preparing to fully review when I went to your talk page to let you know (as you were actively revising the article). Even if I did anything wrong, it's hardly worth continuing to attack me. I can only hope you really are nearing the end of your time here, because you, sir, are a cancer to community cooperation and participation. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That goes too far. Please let it go. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Nosleep, I've been standing in your corner until then but personal attacks like that are not acceptable. Now how about the pair of you go your separate ways as the article isn't an issue any more. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I was fully willing to let it go until he came here for no purpose other than continuing to badger me. There's no good faith possible in that act, and near as I can tell, none in his entire history. I don't think it's a personal attack when it's a clear, provable statement of fact (certain people are jerks. Can we not call a spade a spade?). And yes, I'm done. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Many editors have been able to successfully collaborate with Malleus, both at GAN and FAC, just because you disagree with him doesn't entitle you to act like a jerk. Labelling someone "a cancer" is a personal attack, and if you don't see why I strongly suggest you read WP:NPA. Nev1 (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It has become abundantly clear that an apology is owed here. So, without further Apu, I want to apologize to Ealdgyth. In hindsight, I read too much into her comment. Sometimes people need to vent, and she did so without making any sort of personal attack (or, indeed, without any real comment at all). She wasn't, as I stated before, recruiting an ally. The situation I mentioned has definitely happened with other editors in the recent past, but I was wrong to assume that was the case here without facts to support my statement. I'm going to take this page off my watchlist for a while and try to come back when I think I'm more likely to assume good faith. Jumping to conclusions and making accusations against an editor that I respect isn't what I want to add to Wikipedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hate to butt in on an argument here, and hope I'm not beating a dead horse (no pun intended). But why was the article passed with (a) a very short lead section, (b) a 'legacy' section consisting of two sentences, and (c) a 'pedigree' section consisting of a chart with no text or prose whatsoever discussing it. The article seems to me like it fails criterion #3. Jus' sayin' ... Dr. Cash (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention "Miss Meyers died in March 1953"!

Other issues:

• The "Pedigree" section has no citations. If nothing else I'd incl a citation in the family tree diagram, see e.g. Chelicerate#Major_sub-groups. If that were resolved, I would not worry about lack of text, as the diagram says it all.
• To a non-expert eye (mine) the family tree at "Pedigree" runs from right to left, contrary to normal useage. Is this a convention in racing?
• "Legacy" is very thin. I'd be inclined to move the last 2 sentences of "Race career" into "Legacy" and retitle "Legacy" to "Assessment".
• In "Race career", what's a "stakes race"?
• While I hate the word "choppy" in reviews, "Race career" looks choppy to me - lots of short sentences.

Not a GA yet, IMO. --Philcha (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Better not let certain people hear you say that. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments like that are not going to get you anywhere. My comments were certainly not directed at any particular user, but in fact, more concerned with article quality and the quality of the GA process as a whole. One of the things we have to consider here when reviewing articles is that Wikipedia is a volunteer project -- neither article editors nor reviewers are paid for their services. If we bite each other like this, people will quickly leave, often in a hurry. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The article Ayn Rand was nominated for GA on 2 August, and there was apparently a false start of a review on 4 August by an editor who didn't fully understand the process and who is now distracted with a more important matter. (See comments here.) Is there a way to "reset" so that a different reviewer could pick it up? --RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it's still in line. You might put a note on the GA1 page. I don't think it's necessary to delete it or anything. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a note per your suggestion. I just hope that potential reviewers don't see that the page was created and stop without reading it. --RL0919 (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Could I possibly get some eyes on both sides of Talk:Paddy Bradley/GA1? I don't doubt the review quality or the progress made, but it's approaching FIVE months on GAN, and this should really be resolved one way or the other. Wizardman 00:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion, fail/not l;isted. 5 months is far too long, 1 month max. Fail and take to WP:GAR if necessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The primary editor of this article is a non-native English speaker, and I think his prose is too unclear to be a GA pass at this point. He's tried finding a copyeditor without success, so I'm seeking advice here:

• If I copyedit the article, and seek his input in clarifying things I really don't understand, does that void my objectivity as a GA reviewer? As in, would it be a presumable conflict of interest if I both contributed in that manner AND passed the GA?
• If it IS a conflict of interest, would anyone else like to take over as GA reviewer and/or be willing to copyedit the article?
• Or am I being too hard on the grammar criterion to begin with?

All advice welcome, Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to review it and/or edit it, but not before Thursday 3th Sept. I've not looked at this one; but I did the GA reviews on Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus submitted by the same nominator, and you'll see that I did a few minor fixes. As a reviewer you are able (encouraged) to "fix" problems; but it becomes a judgement call as to whether these changes are major/significant or not. If they are major/significant then it could be advantageous that someone else contributes to the review. Kraków, is a case where a GAN reviewer failed it, did significant changes to improve it; and then resubmitted it for WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Pyrotec, if you are willing to serve as a copy editor, that would probably be simplest. I will be out of town for the next two days with limited Wikipedia access, so a Sept 3rd date doesn't pose a problem. Jclemens (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan! If the article fails, you'll be excommunicated and sent straight to hell! But seriously, no pressure! ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)