Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 16

6 GANs by a user who has made less than 25 edits total

This is a little silly as they will all fail GA. Can someone just close them all? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The one I spot-checked doesn't seem to meet any of the usual quick-fail criteria, so I don't think that it's a foregone conclusion that they will all fail. Also, this seems to be a student, and some student-noms are remarkably responsive to suggestions in reviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure have left suggestions and closed. They can renominate once improved.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. The high-quality media from this session will probably be used to illustrate current or future GAs, hence my message here. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous section

Someone deleted the Miscellaneous section at some point in the last couple of days. I just tried to put it back, but the bot reverted me. Can someone who understands the coding please fix this? Dana boomer (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. It has survived one bot run. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Currently there's an article Artabanes (general) in the section. The talk page suggests it is already GA since August 2010. Does anybody know, why is it still listed at WP:GAN#MISC? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

IP reviewers

Do we accept IP reviewers? If we do, what is to stop someone from reviewing their own nomination? I have noticed that at WP:GAC#Education both nominees have IP reviewers (Talk:Manav Rachna College of Engineering/GA1 and Talk:The Doon School/GA1). Somehow, the latter nomination has triggered this Wikipedia:Good articles/recent edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

IP reviewers should ever be allowed. Never.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, unregistered users may not review articles, as the top of WP:GAN indicates. (Like any other editor, they can nominate them and participate in reviews, but they may not be the reviewer.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have given both of these a procedural fail. They could also have been quickfailed by any editor. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to limit excessive GA nominations

Update; I think it is safe to say there is little to no support for my proposal. I appreciate the willingness of editors to have this discussion, which I think was helpful for the project. (No hard feelings) Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

An editor -- whether with good intentions or not -- has nominated 25 articles for GA review. It is very unlikely that he/she will be able to respond to all GA review feedback and as the editor in question is not a primary contributor to any of those articles, he/she probably will not be able to respond effectively to suggested areas of improvement. Moreover, 25 nominations at the same time drown out other editors' submissions; these may have had more focus and time spent on them (as there are only so many one can focus on at a time), and thus such excessive nominations delays reviews of diligent people.

With this understanding, I wish to seek consensus on a limit on how many nominations an editor can submit or have pending at the same time.

I propose the following rule: "Editors should not nominate more than 10 articles for Good Article Review at the same time. Nominations in excess may be subject to quick-fails and/or delayed consideration of the review".

Lastly, note this would at present only affect one or two users. Please see this GA nomination stat.

Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(added) I would love to open this discussion into an RfC, but before taking it to the broader community, I want to see what regular GA reviewers and nominators think. If this group disapproves, then there would be no point opening an RfC. On the other hand, if there is strong support, a consensus-driven rule can be implemented in the interim while we await community ratification. Lord Roem (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the time limit on responding cause most to fail? He couldn't keep up if they were reviewed at the same time. Five would seem a reasonable limit. PumpkinSky talk 03:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a way to use reviewers' time most efficiently. Personally, I'd rather not have a great reviewer waste time on an editor who will most likely not respond to the suggestions; I'd prefer that time used to work with someone who is diligent and is working with focus and care. Lord Roem (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but would almost prefer to see individual queues. That is, I can try and nominate X (in this case, 25) articles, but only Y (as proposed, 10) will be up for consideration at once. That would allow a user to specify multiple articles that he intends to bring to GA, and hopefully rate-limit things so that an editor doesn't have to nominate things in a trickle to assure that he won't be overwhelmed when a bunch of nominations all make it to the top of the queue in rapid succession. There's an aspect of fairness involved, and I think it's appropriate to have a method such that an ordered list of GA nominations can be processed in a way that is equitable both to the nominator and the reviewers, ass well as directly supporting the project's improvement. 03:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked into the quality of those articles, how close are they to being GA standard, or are thet already there? Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the articles may actually be ready for a GA review. But the quality is not my concern, rather the nominator's ability to respond effectively to a long series of 25 reviews (which back-to-back could take some time). I left a message on the editor's talk page, suggesting he/she pick his top articles and keep those up for GA review, but no response as of yet.

My goal here is a long-term solution, a long-term guideline, even while the immediate case did trigger it. Lord Roem (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

OK I would be in favour of a limit, for the reasons you have given above. Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. First off, the amount in question almost never occurs, therefore leading me to believe that even discussing it is of no importance. Also, the articles that I looked at (only 3) looked pretty darn good, so why limit a reviewers hard work? If anything it will discourage. Now, on a side note, if an editor has 10 articles in waiting, and another 30, I think its pretty expected if the latter nominator's articles get reviewed sooner. Simply due to the sheer number and percentage, its bound to happen.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In general there should be no limit on nominations. It is very easy to have 20 or 30 nominations pending and none under review. Why tie the hands of a productive editor?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just curious why the editor in your hypothetical just has to nominate? Surely they can wait, using the queues idea by Jclemens?

A hard-working editor should not be deterred, just delayed. But this proposal seeks to limit such delays in the first place, by allowing the best submissions of users to be put in (which probably will be an easier review in the first place). If you are correct that most people don't nominate a significant amount generally (as this scenario is an outlier), then this rule would only effect those who just turn in 25+ all at the same times/the random nominators. Lord Roem (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) It may also be worth considering that in this particular instance (with 25 nominations) the editor has done no work on the articles (or at least the half a dozen that I checked) and his talk page is littered with comments that show he's done this before. It is apparently his habit to show up every few months, nominate a batch of articles for GAN, and then not respond to comments/queries/etc. The articles are reviewed and if they are put on hold, the only way the comments are addressed is if another editor steps in to pick up the slack. So, in this instance, it seems to be more one particular "problem" editor, rather than a flaw in the process. Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Oppose: I don't actually see an issue here. If nobody steps up to take the reviewer's notes and work on actually bringing the articles up to the standard, they will fail. If the articles are bad enough, they won't take much time; if they are close to GA, the reviews will make the further nominations take less time to cope with. In the end, this turns out to be a relatively harmless time-shifting. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

But it would waste the reviers time. We need to focus more on what is good for reviewers, not drive by or mass nominators. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My larger proposal aside -- it seems there may be consensus that these particular nominations are done without the intention of acceding to suggestions or improving these articles.

The articles the editor nominated are long and will take significant time to go through. I think there is a time trade-off if we do not remove his nominations. Lord Roem (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure there is. I would propose to check for most outstanding and easy to spot issues (date format consistency, adequate number of references, etc) and put on hold if anything found. If nobody comes to address those, just fail the nomination after 7 days. If no uh problems found, the article indeed can benefit from review, and thus the normal procedure applies (at least for helping future good faith editors to bring it to GA). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the recent batch of nominations by User:Kaypoh should be removed. The user has nominated and abandoned many articles in the past. I consider this to be disruptive use of the article review system. maclean (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

  There is no requirement to put GA nominations on hold. In cases where it seems unlikely that GA problems will be addressed in the nominal hold period of 1 week, reviewers need only leave a review (for the benefit of future editors) and fail the nomination. Geometry guy 21:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have two thoughts:

• We don't need a general rule for a single-user problem. Individual users can be handled through WP:RFC/U.
• There is absolutely no requirement that any nom participate in any review. It is common (because most noms really, really, really want to have "their" articles listed), but it is not required. If there are problems with the article, and nobody chooses to fix them, then fail the article and move on. It is not a waste of a reviewer's time to adequately assess an article and then fail it for good cause. The GA process is fundamentally "figure out if it qualifies", not "collaborate with the nom to make it qualify". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Support This is not really a single user problem. The Bali nine were all nominated at once, about a dozen albums/songs of Mercy Me were waiting for review at the same time as well as a heap of codex articles. This is just from memory before the drive began. Every other site wide quality improvement project (DYK, FA, PR) have ways to limit the number of nomiations that can be put forward at once and it is probably about time something similar is put in place here. I would support a limit and it may be a good idea to put it up for RFC to get wider input. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I support the idea of a limit. It does not need to be a limit of 1 article at a time, managing two or three at a time shouldn't be very hard and shouldn't create problems in the whole system, but 25 is something else and the limit should be established somewhere. And if someone wants a "personal queue", a reminder of new articles to nominate as the nominations are approved, they don't need an external system for doing so, a list in their own user page would be enough. After all, it would be a highly subjetive and personal list. Cambalachero (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cambalachero completely on this. I have only two current nominations, with two more ready to go. I don't want to flood the queue, so I keep track of what I've got ready so I can keep a steady stream of nominations without overloading any backlog at any specific time. Imzadi 1979 → 04:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Is fair to call me the disruptive user and problem editor only because I nom many articles that already GA standard or very close? In past, many articles I nom pass without hold and very few fail without hold, those on hold, at least half passed in the end. Delete all the noms from me and limit number of noms, will minus growth of GA process, many articles which are GA standard do not get the GA, the GA count not accurate. Also will add systemic bias, because the 25 articles about Singapore law and politics, and limit the good writers who nom many articles because they see backlog, they know the noms will take long time to get review. For my noms, why not ask Jacklee (lawyer who write the articles) to help answer reviews? If you want stop noms from people who do not answer reviews, but no account still can nom, how can? --Kaypoh (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you nominated all of the same articles, but only had three or four active nominations at one time, no one would be complaining. It's not the articles themselves, it's the act of nominating two dozen at the same time, that is the issue here. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what is the problem and issue with many nominations? --Kaypoh (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I can. Though there's no issue in sense of Wikipedia policy, most nominators come here with the articles they carefully promoted to GA status by several hours (or days) of editing and reaching consensuses with other editors. Such nominations are often time-sensetive, as nominators often wait for outcome ready to collaborate on issues noted by nominator. By contrast, you don't care much about your nominations, so they flood the log making the average waiting time for others substentionally longer. To avoid such problems You could at least leave the notes (eg. "{{GA nominee|...|note=Batch nomination, can wait forever. ~~~~}}") in order to inform GAN wranglers that your nominations should be served last. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but given the level of English in your post, how can you judge the quality of the writing in an article to know that what you are nominating is "already GA standard or very close"? Imzadi 1979 → 04:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

My English is not very good, but not that horrible like my above post suggests, because I was angry when I type that post and forget to check my English. When I read articles, I can tell if the English is very bad and will not nominate that articles. I can still check referencing standards and other criteria. If you do not understand what I write above, I can post again with better English. --Kaypoh (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

From reading your talk page it's clear that you are abandoning your nominations after you nominate. Other editors then have to come in and address the recommendations for you. This isn't fair to them or to the reviewer, who may have to fail the article after having done a review that did nothing for the article. GAN is not peer review. It's not fair to have reviewers reviewing your 25 GANs when they could be reviewing 25 GANs from 25 different nominators who will spend the time to improve the article based on the suggestions from the review. This is all about being fair to everyone who nominates articles at GAN. --Rschen7754 10:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

After taking a closer look, I'm going to amend my comments slightly. I notice that the comments complaining about the abandoned reviews are from 2008... but since 2008 the editor has made roughly 30 edits, including nominating the 25 GANs that this thread is about. So this does diminish the concerns raised directly above slightly (but a scenario could easily happen again with your nominating 25 GANs)... but considering that you've made 4 edits from June 2008-December 2011, how familiar are you with the GA standards as they are right now? Or Wikipedia style standards in general? I'm sure they've changed since then. --Rschen7754 10:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Support and set the limit to something absurd, like 10 or higher. --Rschen7754 04:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment; just noting the original proposal already says 10 is the highest at one time. Lord Roem (talk) 05:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose any limit below 30 The problem with a limit is it prohibits editorial contributions from the most prolific editors. Few people who exceed 10 noms at a time are nominating quick fails, in my experience. Those that are can be discouraged from numerous simultaneous noms without policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Tony, when looking at the queue, I get turned off by too many articles from the same editor. In fact, I tend to skip over them and look for something else to review. Keep a list in your user space, and stream a reasonable quantity of articles into the queue. Otherwise, you're inviting reviewer fatigue if all they see if your name in the queue. Imzadi 1979 → 18:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Only fatigue with that nominator according to your stated reaction. Nominators may be unwise to nominate too many articles at once, but that is up to them, and is not a problem for WP:GAN. Reviewers can, like you, choose to review something else instead. Geometry guy 21:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Solution in search of a problem. First,it is remarkably rare for an editor to have so many articles queued up, so evidence is lacking that this is a problem in need of addressing. Second, the originator relies on a poor assumption - that the nominator cannot respond to all inquiries. This is speculative, and borderline bad faith. If the articles are close to GA now, and given the expected rate of reviews, I can see no reason not to expect that the nominator could adequately respond to all reviews in a timely manner. Resolute 19:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose limits on nominations as I always have, and agree with comments by Dana boomer, Whatamidoing and Resolute above. More nominations -> more choice of articles to review -> more reviews -> more GAs. It is part of the recipe behind the meteoric success of GA. And what a success: the process is now reliably producing over 250 GAs per month on average. Geometry guy 21:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose limit on nominations. Instituting a rule to prevent one unusual scenario is a textbook example of instruction creep. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Four editors had nine or more nominations awaiting review at the end of November [1], including one with 20. As to the argument that more nominations means more choice, in general when someone bulk nominates articles they are very closely related (songs from one band, episodes from one show etc) and do not increase the choice much at all. AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  I see your point, but such bulk nominations increase choice by at least one article. In this case, the nominations are not particularly run-of-the-mill, and may even help to counter systemic bias. (Or they might be regarded as disruptive, but such questions are a matter for RfC/U, not GAN.) Geometry guy 01:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  A limit (even of one) would still increase the choice by one article in those situations. Twenty-five articles on Singaporean politics aren't run-of-the-mill, but they are likely to stick in the queue for longer than most other nominations; especially as they have been nominated by someone with a reputation for not responding to comments. While a RFC/U might be needed in this case, it would not hurt to have something in place to lessen the impact of well intentioned bulk nominations. AIRcorn (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose instituting a GA nomination limit, at least until the average cycle time of GA nominations can be brought down to something like one week. As long as editors are able and willing to respond to reviews in a timely fashion, we should not artificially limit our most prolific GA writers. If certain editors are abusing the process by nominating multiple articles and then not responding to reviews, we should deal with that administratively, with blocks and topic bans as appropriate. –Grondemar 23:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't see a problem here. If people nomiate a large number of articles at the same time and don't have time to deal with reviews, that is their problem - they might learn something from multiple fails. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Czarkoff's review(s?)

I am not sure if this is the right place to report it, but I just commented on Czarkoff (talk · contribs) (sig:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff) review at Talk:10 złotych note/GA1. Per my comment there, the article suffers from numerous issues which he failed to spot. Some may be minor, but some are not and are quite serious (like the use of an obvious Wikipedia fork in references). Like everybody else, I appreciate good faithed attempts to help us with the reviews, but I am afraid Dmitrij is not familiar enough with Good Article requirements to carry out reviews at this point. The above article clearly does not meet GA criteria, and I am afraid if this is an example of review quality by him, we have to review all other reviews he has done. Dmitrij, please note that we appreciate your efforts, but you need to be more strict and look at more details in your reviews. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I failed to notice some major issues in this review. My previous reviews are:

• Talk:Scandinavian Scotland/GA1
• Talk:Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1897)/GA1
• Talk:Mega Man Network Transmission/GA1
• Talk:M class cruiser/GA1
• Talk:Magdeburg class cruiser/GA1

Currently reviewed:

• Talk:El Chico del Apartamento 512/GA2
• Talk:Goomba/GA1
• Talk:Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/GA2
• Talk:SMS Pillau/GA1

I'm really sorry if I messed things up. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for listing them here. Scandinavian Scotland seems solid, I'll leave the rest to others - perhaps I was to harsh to start with. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • My review of Talk:10 złotych note/GA1 was a huge fail (I spent some time choosing a polite word). At this point I would have started the discussion about possible review of my previous experience with WP:GAN. I don't think You've overreacted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• We all make mistakes. Acknowledging that and learning from them is a mark of a good editor. I appreciate you taking this in the best way possible; if only everybody here would act like this... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, is the article going to be delisted? I've removed the copyvio section btw.VolunteerMarek 18:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I delisted it out of due process, as it was listed. Though i have no previous experience with delisting GAs, I may have done something wrong. Also: could you please rate the article (to keep the talk templates consistent with its status)? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"click for a larger view"

Iḿ currently reviewing the SMS Pillau article, and I spotted the "click for a larger view" part of an image's caption (with a link from the word "click" to the image on Wikimedia Commons). I have a feeling that it's an inappropriate to have such things in a caption (per WP:CAP), but the nominator insists on this. Any suggestions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This exact same formatting has gone through numerous FACs - see for instance SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911). If it's fine by FA standards, it should be fine for GA. I don't know why this is such an issue. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an issue at all. Otherwise I wouldn't bring it here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

For the record: I removed the "click for a larger view" caption and passed the article. I urge everyone to check for these captions and remove them as a minimum for the article to pass on 6b criterion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please point to the relevant portion of the MOS where this is prohibited? As I said above, this format has been subjected to numerous other GANs, ACRs, and FACs, and no one has raised an objection apart from you. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit history shows that not only I am concerned with that. Wikipedia has a well-established practice of displaying thumbnails and providing access to the larger view, which is described in WP:PIC. The section Linking without displaying specifically describes the appropriate way of linking images without displaying them. Next, there is WP:CAPTION which lists succinctness as a criterion of good image caption. This criterion is specifically violated by the irrelevant text that is only included to duplicate already available features. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm really in doubt, as this part of caption was removed, re-added, removed again and re-added again (this time right after the article was passed without the disputated part of caption). Should I perform a procedural de-listing of the article as it now fails criterion #5 (Stable)? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is the only "issue" with the article's stability, no, you shouldn't delist it. You caused the "instability", and it would seem very WP:POINTy to me if you used your actions to reverse the listing. Call it a day and move on, please. Imzadi 1979 → 13:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My greatest concern is that last edit was specifically supposed to return article to the state when it couldn't be listed as GA. That said, not only nominator and I are involved in this small edit war. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion, it couldn't be listed as a GA. As I have said repeatedly, there are plenty of articles that use this exact same formatting that are GA/A/FA, so there must be plenty of editors who think differently. The section you linked to on linking rather than displaying is not relevant; it's talking about formatting images so they show up as blue links rather than as images, it says nothing about providing a direct link to the expanded image in the caption. The section actually seems to support what I'm doing, with the example that sends the user directly to the image. As to succinctness, the section is talking about the caption that describes the image (i.e., don't write a paragraph to describe the image when 4 four words will do); that is patently not what is going on here. If you don't like the practice, fine, but please stop playing games. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

So you claim that the caption with an extra line of caption that gives no benefit isn't less succinct? Really? Or may be you consider an ability to bypass a single click a benefit? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the most succinct possible caption be preferred. Any reasonably succinct—defined in the MOS page as three lines or less, and this is three lines—is acceptable.

Additionally, full compliance with that MOS page is not actually required. The GA criteria name exactly five pages of the MOS that must be complied with (see criterion 1(b)), and MOS/Captions, although linked, is not actually one of the five. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, leaving this alone. The issue is resolved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible bot action - notifying nominators?

Could a bot possibly be coded - and I do not think its technically difficult - to notify the nominator of a GA that it has been reviewed - the initial step. It's easy to miss that your article has been reviewed because it isn't on your watchlist yet. The nominator is already a widely-used parameter on the talk page, and GAbot knows when it's been reviewed, so it could be tagged onto that or merely use the same ifexists-type thing that GAbot uses (I'm guessing). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I consider that it is the job of the reviewer to notify the the nominator. It is a matter of common courtesy. This also means that the reviewer can see notes, e.g. the nominator is on wiki-break, has retired, is blocked, etc. Things that would be considerations in how to proceed. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also consider this approach inappropriate. We have {{GANotice}} for making our job of notification easier. Still it is always useful to see the nominator's talk page while reviewing, as both his activity schedule and some notes or concerns about the article can be sometimes found there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 Virginia earthquake GA Review

I reviewed an article (2011 Virginia earthquake) for GA status back on January 3, made my recommendations known on the review page, no changes were made in the 48 hour window (actually it was more like 96 cause I forgot,), so I failed the review and removed it from the GAN page. The bot added it right back to the GAN page just two minutes later, but that is my goof. Only found out today that I needed to remove the template from the talk page...'nother goof. Well, over the course of the past couple days, User:Mikenorton made all the changes for that I recommended and I told him to put it back through at GAN. Though I have failed the article and if there are no objections to me doing so, I would be glad to promote the article to GA status. Again, if there are no objections. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason you can't re-review the article and then pass it if you are happy it meets the criteria. I only took a quick look at the article, but in my opinion the lead looks quite weak (four paragraphs, two of which consist of just a single sentence). I would also suggest leaving your reviews open for longer than two days, many reviewers allow a week for responses. AIRcorn (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

@Aircorn: The 48 hours thing, that would be a newbie reviewer mistake on my part. I was trying to remember back to a GAC I took an article through and got the time periods wrong. I did bring the last two paragraphs of the lede together into one, so they are more "strong" together. I will review the page, which is up for review again, and will promote it to GA status. After, of course, doing a complete review. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Kaypohs nominations revisited

The majority of the 24 remaining nominations from kaypoh (talk · contribs) were created by students of the Singapore Management University Constitutional and Administrative Law Wikipedia Project. Kaypoh does not appear to be affiliated with the course and the students have since finished with the articles and are in the middle of another semester. The supervisor is not too happy about so many being nominated at once, but is willing to help out, time permitting (see User talk:Smuconlaw#Singaporean politics Good article candidates). It would probably be a good idea to ping smuconlaw (talk · contribs) on his talk page if you have any concerns when reviewing these articles. AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone check my working

Can I get a bit of community insight?

I reviewed Catenary on the 18th December, and the nominee has been working on the article pleasantly, I was lax on the timing given the holidays and a week ago we argreed a deadline of today. Now, in my opinion the lede still isn't up to scratch (I could fix much of the other issues myself in a couple of hours) and I think I should probably fail the article, but this would be my first (non-straightforward) fail and I'd like the opinion of this board before I do - would anyone mind having a quick look and giving the opinion? (I took some general advice from Quadell earlier on - I mention for completeness rather than anything else). There's also the small issue that the blackout should probably warrant an additional day...

Any other GA-based developement points also welcome. Failedwizard (talk) 13:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

bot frequency

Looking at all the recent broken edit summaries, is it possible to put the bot on a 10 minute cycle instead of a 15 minute cycle?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I can if you want. Although, I don't think it will actually make that much of a difference. The edit summaries should be mostly fine now (sorry, they can be very fiddly), and I'll be keeping an eye on them for any edge cases. --Chris 17:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by fiddly. My point is that edit summaries are limited to a specific number of characters. If two many actions fall in any 15 minute period right now the overloaded edit summary does not show in its entirety. I.E., some actions are not recorded by the edit summary. If the bot ran on 10 minute intervals rather than 15 minute intervals, the edit summary would be overloaded far less often. I don't know what problems would be caused by it running more often, but it would solve some edit summary issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. It will now run every 10 minutes. --Chris 03:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

GA1 created improperly

What is the procedure to follow if the GA1 page was created improperly, i.e. by the same person who added the {{GA nominee}} to the talk page? The specific case is Elisabeth Sladen and Talk:Elisabeth Sladen/GA1. The {{GA nominee}} was added by Sfxprefects (talk · contribs) who then created the Talk:Elisabeth Sladen/GA1. This was then deleted under WP:CSD#G2 (test page), with no further explanation. I then restored it, as it had appeared to be a fair start to a GA1 although I hadn't spotted that the nominator and reviewer were one and the same. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete under CSD#G6 and explain the situation to the nominator? They've either made a mistake or are acting in bad faith; either way, nothing is to be gained from leaving the page as it is. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, G6 it is. One of my worries was that I have previously seen GA bot (talk · contribs) get confused by people carrying out actions not covered on the WP:GAN page. Perhaps this procedure should be described explicitly, in the same way that the procedure is described for "To withdraw a nomination before the review has begun", etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well... this edit summary, taken with the fact that it correctly removed the signature, but left the {{GAReview}} suggests a confused bot, and that simply deleting the GA1 page is not the proper action. Further advice would be welcome. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The bot is generally pretty smart when it comes to those kinda things. I've fixed this page (note the change of the "status=onreview"), and the bot has fixed itself --Chris 03:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

New subsections

Some new subsections were added to the page, but not to the list in the instructions. Was the bot changed to accomodate these new subsections or should we revert?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The bot is happy to accomodate them; I don't think it event technically needs a change. See the section above at the top of this page. There are still a few issues- the fact they're not listed in the instructions is one of them. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

How does the bot feel about the fact that two new subsubsections are named "other"?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The bot's fine with those two subsections, although it does now parse the page slightly differently than before. At the moment, the only problem is the edit summaries, which I'm working on stabilising. --Chris 17:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be double counting some actions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Now Phoenix (fireboat) has been listed as new in the last 5 updates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The count is now 8 (see here).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that should be fixed now. --Chris 03:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Can someone fix the instructions to go along with the new subsections. Now that there are multiple sections named other, I am not sure how to nominate things.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  Having multiple sections with identical names is an WP:ACCESS problem. We need unique section headings like "Other music articles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Added some instructions. The new categories are implemented simply by putting "Songs", "Albums", or "Episodes" in the subtopic field. Using "Music" and "Theatre, film and drama" will list the article under the respective other headings. AIRcorn (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear how to put things in the other categories.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Had another go. It could probably be tightened up a bit, but hopefully makes more sense. AIRcorn (talk) 07:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the bot set up for this?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what affect that will have on the bot, but thought I would see if it worked. If it doesn't it can be reverted back easily enough. If you know that it won't work then it can be reverted now. AIRcorn (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I just did my bit to clarify the instructions and make a minor correction as well. I initially couldn't figure out how to nominate a television episode; now I have. I notice there's been some manual moving from "Other" to "Episodes" by people who hadn't understood the instructions; someone should probably keep an eye out until people get the hang of the new system (or realize that it's there). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bit of a mess

There's a bit of a mess at Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement/GA1. The readers digest version is: I rewrote the page and nom'd it for GA. Someone I had been in a dispute with on the page earlier created the review put it on hold. Another reviewer dropped by and said he was willing to do an objective review. I'm a little unfamiliar with the GA procedure here, but would like to have the second reviewer cleared to take over the review. I had resolved to disengage from the article due to what I see as disruptive editing by one party, but am willing to work to fix any issues identified in a GA review. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

El Chico del Apartamento 512

As of today's morning the El Chico del Apartamento 512 article was the longest waiting one (in queue since September 15). I started its review on January 7, but failed to finish it before my vacation (starting January 21). As some issues are already addressed, finishing review might be an easy task, so I would like to ask someone to do that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please review this article? Its first GA review abandoned the article, and now the second will be unable to further review it because of RL. So it's going to be a third try, which isn't fair at all. Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on expectations

I nominated M-36 (Michigan highway) on January 15. A reviewer put it "on hold" (corrected by the bot to "on review") without a review about 15 hours later. On January 21, I pinged the reviewer [[[User:Rahulmothiya|Rahulmothiya]] (talk · contribs)] to see if s/he was still interested in doing the missing review. Two days later, I pinged again, and was told it would be done "today"; as of this writing, there is still no review a day later. (All times are UTC; the reviewer is in India and I'm in the US.). Am I expecting too much to have a timely review? Imzadi 1979 → 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

After a week....no, you are not expecting too much. I suggest asking one last time but I would add that you have been patient and if they are too busy with other work that after a week of waiting it may be time for them to release this back to other editors to review.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I gave him/her a polite ultimatum to let me know if s/he will be doing the review. If something doesn't budge in 24 hours, I'll tag the review page for deletion so we can return it to the queue. Imzadi 1979 → 03:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And the page is tagged for deletion. Thanks for the help, Amadscientist. Imzadi 1979 → 22:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Harvard citations

I would like to inform everyone here that the template {{Harvard citation}} is now undergoing TFD, and the nominator intends to nominate the rest of the Harvard citation templates for deletion in case of success. This probably means that all the reviews of the articles using these templates should probably be put on hold until the issue is solved there. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion has been closed as "snow keep". Bencherlite^Talk 22:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In any case, TfD's like this should not affect the smooth running of GA any more than a ship should switch off engines when the sea gets a bit rough. Geometry guy 01:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Category Splitting

What do editors think about splitting the music and theatre, film and drama categories into smaller groups. Something similar was brought up a month ago at WT:GA#Spliting over populated categories, but is more likely to get responses here. Personally I like the idea of splitting songs out of music and episodes out of theatre, film and drama. They are usually the largest categories and splitting them this way is pretty distinct and should roughly halve them; currently resulting in an exact split for music and 35 episodes (mostly X-files) vs 22 other theatre, film and drama articles. I also admit that this type of split would suit me as I have no real desire to review most songs or episodes making it easier to find articles I am more interested in. It should also work in reverse for editors who want to review these sorts of articles. I am thinking it would be relatively easy to implement, a change to the bot and some minor adjustments when nominating. AIRcorn (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Splitting subsubtopics at GA is generally straightforward to do, and has no impact on GAN. Splitting subtopics at GA and GAN requires more work, thought and coordination. However, we may be reaching the stage at which the subtopic splitting is too coarse for GAN, and we need to use GA subsubtopics instead. That would lead to many more much shorter lists, which may not be a bad thing, as it would encourage greater reviewer choice. Geometry guy 23:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support the splitting of subtopics, both when listing them on the WP:GA lists as well as on the WP:GAN page. I generally skip over the entire "music" category when looking at noms since it is largely full of pop music songs, which I have no interest or patience for. However, I will review articles that pertain to things such as classical music or artists. Splitting the category would allow me to see those articles, and thus I'd be more likely to review them. --Tea with toast (話) 03:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

For the GA page, I think the songs should at least be split between before and after 2000, just because having a subcategory with 600+ article is getting to be too much. GAN might be tougher, because oversplitting could make things needlessly complicated. splitting music into people/events/etc. and albums/songs would probably be beneficial though, or splitting episodes out from tf+d. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My first thought was to split songs and albums together, but then when I counted the current nominations only four in the music category where not a song or album. It might be useful to have three categories here: songs, albums and other. Having a short "other" queue might encourage the nomination of more people, bands and genres. AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

When I wrote this I was referring specifically to the GAN page, but would also support the refinement of at least the songs and episodes list at GA. I don't know if we are at the stage where we need to split the categories to the level of GA just yet, it might be better to concentrate on the more overpopulated ones first. As to implementation I was thinking it would just be a case of making new headings here, updating the GA bot, and then informing/reminding nominators until they get used to the change. I have just left a message informing the bot operator about this discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the categories shouldn't be a problem for the bot, it's a relatively trivial change. --Chris 06:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Some positive support and no one has disagreed yet. If no one objects in the next few days I will look into enacting the change. The proposal based on the above will at this stage be to have three subcategories under music (songs, albums and other) and two under tf&d (television episodes and other). AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I suggesteed this some time ago and was lambasted. I am glad it was finally done. --Ishtar456 (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Some problems after Chris G's change

Chris G (talk · contribs) made a change and I've done some recategorisation. There are a few problems right now.

1. Firstly, as Aircorn says, albums and songs should strictly be subsubcategories, as they are very clearly still covered by the more general "music" (same with episodes, etc). They should be listed as such.
2. Secondly, adding the "includes" to these categories is difficult- the "episodes" category could also theoretically include episodes of radio or internet shows, which would be categorised outside of the two explicit "episode" categories on the main GA list, and the album category covers part of the "Recordings, compositions and performances" category, but not all of it. As such, some categories on the GA page may be split on the GAC page. This isn't necessarily a problem, but we need to work out how we would use "includes:" on the GAC page with regards to these "split" groups.
3. Thirdly, the bot doesn't currently know of these groups- while it categorises pages into them if asked, it also adds them to Category:GAN error.

I think the first problem is the most pressing, and so working out a way to display the whole thing intuitively on the GAC page should be the first priority. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Category:GAN error issue is related to the GAN template, not the bot. I've made a (temporary) fix at {{GA/Subtopic}}. Geometry guy 18:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The first issue is my fault, the comment I left on Chris's talk page was not clear enough. I will leave him another message now. This is how I think it should be arranged. AIRcorn (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I broke things slightly for awhile (most noticeably the edit summary), however it should now work as you requested. --Chris 16:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Renomination of failed GA with no changes

I reviewed Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares from 2012-01-06 to 2012-01-13. During the review I outlined the most basic issues with the article (like missing references, formatting breakages, basic prose issues), fixed some minor reference-related issues myself and failed the nomination after 7 day timeout of no activities. Now I notice that the article is nominated again by the same person and with no single edit since my review. What is the due process in this case? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

As a non-expert who has conducted a few reviews, I would think that should be grounds to quick fail the article, especially if the changes required are as substantial as you say. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Close and re-nominate, this is an accepted behavior, as the nominator may disagree with the review. So, it shouldn't be speedily failed. However, the new reviewer is not forced to make a new review from scratch, and may simply reconfirm the original review if he considers it had legitimate concerns Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Cambalachero is correct. A second reviewer can use the notes from the previous review. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is also open to appeal reviews but re-nominating at WP:GAN is fine, too. maclean (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand. It definitely seems like bad form on the part of the nominator, especially since he/she isn't making any disagreement with the review known. From a quick glance, that review seemed spot on regarding the article's problems. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there are citation needed tags still in the article, yet it was re-nommed, tell me all I need to know about the intentions of the nominator. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The nominator, Philcha, has been among the most dedicated long-term contributors to GA. Sadly, for several years now, he has been suffering from a chronic illness limiting his ability to edit. I do not know the nature of the illness or whether it is terminal, but it is likely to be wiki-terminal in the sense that his ability to contribute has been rapidly declining over these few years. Nevertheless, he apparently remains dedicated to the goal of achieving GA status for Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares, despite the fact that the article requires more work, and he is not able to do it. What we do here could be a defining moment for the spirit of GA.

1. We can, of course, ignore the issue, in which case the article will not pass GA in the foreseeable future, despite ongoing requests from Philcha.
2. We could instead seek to improve the article to GA standard (there are surely GA editors with enough knowledge to do so), and, once it passes, present it as thanks to Philcha for all his work at GA.

I offer all my help towards option 2. What do others think? Geometry guy 01:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a no-brainer. Philcha has been one of the heroes of GA, and if we can't help him now then it will make us all look like ungrateful piles of shit. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, hyperbolic much? I'd say that, his personal problems aside, if he was truly invested in getting that article to GA, he would've tried to address the comments in the GA review that had just failed before renominating it. If either of you want to make those changes, by all means. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't try and teach me how to suck eggs. Try growing up. Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility please. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, we have a civility policy? Who'd have guessed? Let me put it to you bluntly; I am incensed by comments such as yours Muboshgu, but they perhaps serve as a salutory reminder of what's really gone wrong here. Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand...I loved MOO2. I'll look maybe tonight sometime tomorrow.....terrible to hear about Philcha. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! I've watchlisted and will help when and where I can. Geometry guy 09:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is no procedural quickfail for GAs--there are a limited, finite set of circumstances where an article can be quickfailed. If the nom fails to address any of the concerns by the time the article comes up a second time in "normal" queue processing, then it should be failed again, but jumping the gun and re-failing it is an ABF move. Folks were griping at me for immediately re-nominating Fire and Blood (Game of Thrones) after it was picked from the middle of the queue and failed a month ago. All that an immediate re-nom meant in that case was that I was intending to address the review by the time the article came up again, and in fact I've dealt with more than 2/3rds of the feedback in the first GA review--and there's still one of my own nominations ahead of it. If I'd objected to the substance of the review (I did not), GAR would have been appropriate. Those of us who are used to months-long GA queue durations are prone to nominate things based not on their current state, but on their projected state, and I see nothing wrong with doing so. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

While there is nothing stopping someone nominating an article not yet at GA standard, there is also nothing stopping a reviewer choosing to review it and then failing it because they decide it can not reach a passable state in a reasonable time. The definition of reasonable varies with each reviewer, but there is no set timeframe and no obligation to place the article on hold. AIRcorn (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. And if queue times keep getting shorter, I expect those new to the GA process won't even think of doing it, and those of us who are used to multi-month queue times will gradually stop doing so. On the other hand, I wonder at the motivations of a reviewer who would pick an article at a new queue position, review it, and fail it. The GA process is, like everything else in Wikipedia, a collaborative process to improve our encyclopedic content, and premature failures--especially those without detailed reviews or "go to peer review" suggestions--don't help that one bit. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the queue can be kept under control, but history would suggest that the current post-backlog drive state is temporary. As to motivations, when there were 350 odd articles waiting for review I was occasionally scanning through nominations that had been put up within the last week and failing any that were a long way off good article status. My reasoning was that it was better to be failed after spending a week in the queue than three months. I generally agree with your appraisal of the GA process, but I also don't see how nominating underdone articles with the expectation that it will take three months to review is helpful either. It will most likely be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as some reviewers bypass articles they see as needing a lot of work. Otherwise a reviewer will take it on and waste their time pointing out improvements that the nominator is already well aware of or they will simply fail it. In my opinion it would be much better to get the article as close to good article standard as your skill allows before nominating. AIRcorn (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So, do you think the current quickfail criteria, which don't appear to reflect the way you've been doing business, need to be revised? Because right now "a long way off good article status" isn't a quickfail criterion, such that any nominator, reading the GA process documentation, would have an expectation of receiving a full review. This is actually a very important distinction: getting feedback is part of the value of a GA review even for a failing article. If there is no expectation of feedback for an article that obviously does not meet the criteria, then that does change the dynamics of pre-completion nominations. This probably merits a bigger discussion than simply this thread. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing quickfailing an article and reviewing an article, deciding that it is not a pass and not holding it before failing it. Nothing needs to be revised, it is included in the instructions on this page (Number 3 on how to review an article). Feedback should still given as to why it doesn't meet the criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Aircorn is quite right, but this distinction is not widely appreciated, and failing without a hold is underused: I would encourage reviewers to prefer failing without a hold over quickfailing, as the former requires leaving specific (but not necessarily at all comprehensive) review information that will benefit future editors (and reviewers) of the article. In contrast the quickfail criteria are excuses for not providing such specific information: they are useful to the extent that they process and deter abuses of the system, nothing more. Geometry guy 02:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

New subsections - GANR

Although GA bot (talk · contribs) may understand the changes, StatisticianBot (talk · contribs) is ignoring all the Arts articles in WP:GANR lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Left a message at the bots page. The owner hasn't edited for a while so I will flick an email as well. AIRcorn (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What is our next step? Are there other editors capable of updating the bot?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Aircorn, did you contact Dvandersluis (talk · contribs)? I see you left a comment on the bot's talk page. When you emailed did it go to Dvandersluis?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I sent the email to Dvandersluis at the same time. Have not heard anything back yet, but it is still relatively early. AIRcorn (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with 2nd opinions/flagged reviews from December GAN drive

I have given out awards for the December 2011 backlog drive. However, some users had their reviews flagged by me and I would appreciate a volunteer or two providing 2nd opinions on those. Please see the awards thread on the drive talk page for information. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sub-subsection problem

I submitted my first GAN, "Yes/No", using the "|subtopic=Episodes" parameter, as the instructions say, but when I went to look, the bot had put it in the "Other" catchall section of Theatre, film and drama, not the "Episodes" section. So it's getting into the correct subtopic, but not getting placed into the correct, specified sub-subsection. Any ideas what went wrong, and how it can be prevented from happening again? BlueMoonset (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: I forgot to clarify that when I saw it had been placed wrong, I moved it by hand from "Other" to "Episodes", which is why it's in the correct sub-subsection now. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Further addendum: The GA Bot just moved it back to "Other". Can someone who knows what's causing this problem fix things so "Yes/No" will be placed in "Episodes" and stay there? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've also had this problem with my three recent GANs (nommed under Episodes subtopic but the bot moved it to the broader Theatre Film category). Thought it was something I did, but now I'm not so sure. Ruby 2010/2013 19:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a glitch in the template translation. We put "Episodes", and when doing the conversion, it puts "Theatre, film and drama" there instead. Apparently, the fix is to go re-edit your talk page once the initial GAN template is done and change the subtopic from "Theatre, film and drama" to "Episodes" by hand—that's what Aircorn did for me last night. Then its safe to move it on the GAN page... or maybe the bot would have moved it had not Aircorn restored my manual move, which then stuck. At any rate, I'm hoping someone who knows the innards of the template can figure out what's happening. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Figured it out. Tested it and it should work now. AIRcorn (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the quick action. It may be a bit before I submit my next GAN, but I'll let you know how it goes. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wanted to note that I submitted a new GAN not quite two hours ago using "Episodes", and it worked just as it ought. Thanks again for the fix! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a further note here, the Report page apparently has yet to recognise the new subtopics on the nominations page (for instance, not counting nominations listed under the new subtopics when compiling its list of "longest reviews" or "most nominations", etc). Haven't the first clue about fixing it though. GRAPPLE X 20:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tried contacting the bot on the talk page and via email (see "New subsections - GANR" above). Still no response and looking at the owners talk page he is probably busy in the real world. Not sure what can be if he is no longer available, maybe someone else could take over the bot? AIRcorn (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the Report is now way off and is so completely misleading as to be almost useless. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It is likely to be blocked and someone else has offered to write a new one. I have moved the discussion about the new bot to the bottom in case people are missing it. AIRcorn (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing needed

NSB Di 6 (review) has undergone a review, the reviewer came with good comments and I have amended them accordingly. Despite nagging, and the reviewer stating that the article meets the criteria, the reviewer is not willing to pass the article, ask for a second optioning (or fail it for that matter). Could someone please take a look at it. Thanks, Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Worst case scenario you can always withdraw (fail) the article yourself. AIRcorn (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Which category should I place an article about a charity catering to special needs people?

I have just finished Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore and once its peer review ends, the article will go on GAN. Which section should I place its nomination in? Asking because I plan to write GAs about other Singaporean charities catering to special needs people. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with "Culture and Society" AIRcorn (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibility of a new bot

I started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Bot requests#Bot owner not responding about what to do if StatisticianBot is not fixed. If we get no response from the owner soon it is likely that this bot will be blocked. There is also the possibility of getting a new bot to update the reports page. If it goes ahead it might be a good opportunity to request some changes/additional features for the bot. For starters I think it would be nice if the links on the page went to the actual GA reviews when possible and if there was a way to identify new reviewers. I don't know whats possible, but it can't hurt to ask. AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Added {{nobots}} to page (not preventing GAbot from the main page) ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 01:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

StatisticianBot

Why is StatisticianBot (talk · contribs) ignoring and removing {{nobots}} at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items? Does anyone know how to edit its code so that it can account for all the recent WP:GAC modifications?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

StatisticianBot ignores {{nobots}} because unfortunately I was not aware of it when I coded the bot. Should the backlog page not be updated automatically anymore?

As mentioned on my userpage:

Hey guys, sorry I've been out of contact. Life has been really busy and Wikipedia is unfortunately low on the priority scale. From what I can see, the bot seems to still be running, and updating the report page; I didn't check the page for validity though - what is it generating incorrectly?

I'm thinking it might be best to throw the source up on github when I get a chance so that someone else can take over when the bot needs to be updated in the future as, despite my best intentions and liking being involved with the project in this capicity, I don't seem to be able to make time for it quickly nowadays.

—Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 23:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been many new subsections created at WP:GAC (mostly in the Arts section). StatisticianBot (talk · contribs) is ignoring most of these in the WP:GANR report. It would be great if you could avail the code so that others can update it for changes like this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I will hopefully get the bot fixed up some time before the next time it runs. The problem is that it was coded to consider only two levels of categories on the GAN page, but with the restructuring there are now three in places, which is why those subcategories are being ignored. I'm going to update it so that any number of subcategories will be able to be parsed, so that future restructuring will not cause the same issue. I will also upload the code when I'm done. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 23:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, when I promoted Malloch Building today, the bot inexplicably listed it as a new article under "Miscellaneous". MathewTownsend (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Malloch Building in the report, other than as an old nomination. If you're talking about the bot that builds the GAN page, that's actually a different bot, GA bot (talk · contribs). —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 23:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Bot passed it a few minutes after you removed it.[2] AIRcorn (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually my above message was a bit incorrect; the bot was considering lower hierarchy levels except it was expecting them to be sequential (ie. first a category with heading level 2, then heading level 3, then 4, etc.). With the restructuring of the page, There is now headings levels 2, 3, and 5 (but no 4), which is what is confusing the bot. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 23:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

So if we just change it to level 4 it should work. Sounds like an easy fix. As long as any other changes to the format on this page use the right level headers will it still work? AIRcorn (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I just changed the level 5s to level 4s.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This should indeed work but I'm going to run some tests regardless. Are the headings created by GA bot (talk · contribs) or just used by it? Will it screw up now with the headings being changed? —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 00:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of GA bot is that it doesn't even use the headings, there are bot start and bot end tags on the page. We will tell soon enough anyway. AIRcorn (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay cool, well if the categories work with the headers as-is, it makes my work a bunch easier :) —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 00:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, StatisticianBot should properly update the report again now, with all the correct categories covered! I've run a test report which you can take a look at on User:StatisticianBot/Sandbox5. The bot will run as normal at 09:00 UTC as always - if it doesn't update properly please let me know ASAP! As well, the bot should now properly adhere to {{nobots}} (and its variants). —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 05:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot the sandbox looks fine. Just a small additional (but minor) request. Is it possible to include links to reviews from the reports page. So someone looking at the older nominations could go from that page straight to the review without coming through this one. AIRcorn (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

For example:

1. 2011 FA Cup Final (77 days) (review)

Yeah that should be possible, but it's not going to get done before the next time the bot runs ;) I'll need to collect some more information when parsing the GAN page in order to get the correct links. Hopefully I'll have a chance to make that change soon! —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 06:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No rush, just having it up and running is great. AIRcorn (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Missoula, Montana

It's only a minor issue, but the bot for some reason put Missoula, Montana under the subheading Geography instead of Places where it makes more sense. I tried to fix it, but the bot simply put it back. Thanks Dsetay (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to change the template at the articles talk page.[3] The bot will do the rest. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Delaware Route 41

I noticed that Raunaq.sarcar (talk · contribs) reviewed Delaware Route 41 and passed it. However, a review page was not created. I left a message on the talk page advising him about it. Dough4872 19:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Raunaq appears to be a new editor and is probably unaware of the process. The article at the very least needs a short blurb saying that it has been checked against the criteria and passes. If you don't get a response to your message I would recommend undoing the pass. AIRcorn (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the page back to nomination, as it's clear from looking at the editor's contributions that a review was never done. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well now the editor created the page... and has abandoned the article, apparently. --Rschen7754 19:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been a week. What should be done with the incomplete review? Dough4872 01:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the page so that a new reviewer can get it; this is ridiculous. --Rschen7754 01:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

GA bot missing some actions

I failed Sherlock Holmes (play) and GA bot denoted the action with a maintenance edit summaary. This has been happening frequently with passes and fails lately.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

copyvio GAN

I found copyvio in The Dirty Picture. Couldn't check the whole thing because my browser freezes on some citations. I notified the nominator and put it in the copyvio queue. Should it be removed from the GAN queue? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's to a large and invasive degree, then surely it should be quick failed. If it's a few minor incidences that could be readily fixed without an extensive rewrite then I'd keep it on hold to be seen to. GRAPPLE X 17:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was two full sections that were completely copied from an article, so I quick failed it. (I labelled the sections in the article.) There may be more. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

LivingBot

It seems that StatisticianBot (talk · contribs) and GA bot (talk · contribs) are now operating correctly for the most part although I am not sure I agree that when an article goes on review and then is failed in the same 10 minute GA bot cycle it should be chalked up to maintenance. LivingBot (talk · contribs), continues to have issues with human error. It seems to miss both instances where the reviewer passes the article on its talk page but fails to list it on the proper WP:GA subpage and fails to put a proper topic in the topic field (see Talk:About a Girl (Sugababes song)) as well as instances where even though it is listed on the proper subpage, the reviewer forgot to change the article talk page field from subtopic to topic (see Talk:Non-fatal offences against the person in English law). These are just two very recent examples of human error problems in passing articles. I am wondering about the variety of types of human error in the passing of articles. Most importantly, is there a check for talk pages with the {{GA}} template that are not listed on any WP:GA subpage?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Merging sub-sections

Should the "Archaelogy" sub-section be merged with the "World history" one? I see no reason to keep a fairly quiet category when we often have a backlog here. DCItalk 19:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Merging subsections will be a lot easier than splitting them. There are a few fairly quite cats that could be merged and it might reduce the overall length of the page. AIRcorn&nbsp:(talk) 08:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've always wondered why "Farming and cultivation" and "Food and drink" were separate sub-sections. Neither have ever been very busy. maclean (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The collapsed box below may help in deciding a better format for the lists. Those with less than 100 current good articles may benefit from merging if there is an appropriate topic to merge into. I am not sure why the nomination topics are not in alphabetical order or the value of "Everyday life" as a major heading. AIRcorn (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Current page format and numbers of current good articles under each heading (in brackets)

Arts Art and architecture (460) Music Albums (470) Songs (634) Other music articles (420) Theatre, film and drama Episodes (1038) Other theatre, film and drama episodes (923) Language and literature Language and linguistics (24) Literature (461) Philosophy and religion Philosophy (25) Religion, mysticism and mythology (285) Everyday life Farming and cultivation (8) Food and drink (48) Sports and recreation (1489) Video games (454) Social sciences and society Culture and society (166) Education (128) Economics and business (139) Law (246) Media and journalism (94) Politics and government (250) Psychology (13) Sociology (4) Geography and places Geography (258) Places (269) History Archaeology (54) World history (613) Royalty, nobility and heraldry (196) War and military (1783) Engineering and technology Computing (68) Engineering (95) Transport (1077) Mathematics Mathematics and mathematicians (30) Natural sciences Biology and medicine (815) Chemistry and materials science (91) Geology, geophysics and mineralogy (27) Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (643) Physics and astronomy (192) Miscellaneous (0)

What about the following format? Nomination topics in bold, subtopics listed beside each nomination topic.

• Agriculture, food and drink: Agriculture, food and drink combining "Farming and cultivation" and "Food and drink"
• Art and architecture: Art and architecture
• Language and literature: Language and literature combining "Language and linguistics" and "Literature"
• Engineering and technology: Computing and engineering combining "Computing" and "Engineering" · Transport
• Geography and places: Geography · Places
• History: World history adding in "Archaeology" · Royalty, nobility and heraldry · War and military
• Mathematics: Mathematics
• Music: Albums · Songs · Other music articles
• Philosophy and religion: "Philosophy" and "Religion" combining "Philosophy" and "Religion"
• Natural science: Biology and medicine · Chemistry and materials science · Earth sciences combining "Geology, geophysics and mineralogy" and "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" · Astronomy and physics
• Social sciences and society: Culture, sociology and psychology combining "Culture and society", "Psychology" and "Sociology" · Education · Economics and business · Law · Media and journalism · Politics and government
• Sports and recreation: Sports and recreation
• Theatre, film and drama: Episodes · Other theatre, film and drama episodes
• Video games: Video games
• Miscellaneous:

• All of this looks quite good. Who would one go to to get this implemented? dci | TALK 02:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of it can be done be simply moving the categories, although Chris G (talk · contribs) who runs the GA bot, will need to make some changes. It shouldn't affect Statistician bot as the heading levels will stay the same, but it might pay to do it while Dvanderlius is still around. I can make some enquirers with the aim of getting it sorted over the weekend if no one has objected to the changes by then. AIRcorn (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense merging "Computing" with "Video games" instead of "Engineering"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot question: hiding empty sections from TOC

Currently the TOC of WP:GAN shows all sections regardless of the current nominations. Could it be possible for Bot to make empty subsections a level lower then others and tuning TOC to hide them (see Help:Section § Limiting the depth of the TOC). This would give a benefit of showing the choice of current GAN topics in a glance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

GA bot feature

And another thing about GA bot. Can it be tuned to notified the subscribed users of the new nominations via talk pages (the way RFC bot does it). It should be possible to tune the notifications on topics via GAN and kind of events. I wanted to go to Wikipedia:Bot requests for this, but may be GA bot would be a right bot to do it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary Sources in law articles

I as considering revieing Narragansett land claim and when I looked at it it was entirely based on publically available court documents - which I would consider primary sources. I would be very reluctant to giving GA status to an article that relied this heavily on primary sources - but I realize that in legal articles the use of court documents is not that uncommon. Is there any precedent for promoting articles with no secondary sources - particularly legal articles? Extra eyes on Narragansett land claims would ge appreciated - perhaps I am being to harsh. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as the court documents verify the statements after which they are cited, and there is no original inference from the court documents, I don't see why this would be a problem, although I would have used more secondary sources if I was writing on this subject, and I have not reviewed any other elements of the article. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)This user is a WP:SOCK of a banned user. Any comments they made can be safely disregarded, any edits they made may be reverted without further cause. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it is possible t avoid original inference from the documents - in order to build a narrative it is necessary to chain the documents together (which the article does to some extent) not having checked the documents I can't be sure but it is difficult for me to believe that the documents provide that kind of narrative information. Also our policy WP:PRIMARY quite clearly states: "Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources. " (original emphasis). It seems this would have to be followed for an article to be considered "Good".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, someone took an article to GA without any coverage of the lawsuit(s) in reliable secondary sources at all? That's... odd. I agree that an article without secondary sources--even specialized law review ones--probably does not meet the GA criteria. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Followup to page overhaul

I see that the page was overhauled this morning. The instructions need to be amended to keep up. Also, are we going revise the WP:GA subpages? If so we will need to revise the section links in each WP:GAC subsection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I would be happy to see a rationale for such overhaul: it doesn't look sane at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I assumed there was a consensus to make the change. Was I wrong?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I only noticed the discussion when the changes were made. I'm concerned about "Computing" section as it is my scope of interest here. I would prefer merging "Computing" with "Video games", and the "Engineering" with "Physics". To me this merge is more natural: eg. Space Shuttle Main Engine clearly doesn't belong to the same section as "Computing", while Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness probably not; though Topology (electrical circuits) goes agaist my take. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The instructions are changed and the discussion is at the top of the page. I plan to update the WP:GA pages to reflect the changes pages as I have time. Computing has always been under "Engineering and Technology", this has just merged it into Engineering. It might not be the best merge, but it is certainly no worse. If you want to propose further changes it should not be too difficult, although there is a bit of co-ordination between different user, bots and templates required. AIRcorn (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, my take is from pretty narrow perspective: I was watching for nominations on "Computing", and now I have to check the pages in order to get whether they are indeed on Computing. I don't know, whose problems solved this merge, but it created a problem for me, which right now seems to come just out of nowhere. Regarding the proposals in my comment: they make sense for me, but nobody commented yet. I believe we should just roll back to the version that was effective before this change and create a proper discussion inviting all the recent GA reviewers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It can't just be rolled back as the page is populated by a bot, the bot would have to be re-updated. I don't know how you can create a better discussion than posting here, over 800 people watch this page all of whom are most likely interested in the GA process. Personally I have no problem if you want to re-split out computing from engineering (the merge was based solely on numbers at WP:GA). You could even move video games under the Technology heading if that makes things easier. If changes to the page involve changing headings (i.e. splitting groups, new groups etc) then the bot owner needs to make the change as GA bot (talk · contribs) will need updating. If the change involves just moving sections around anyone should be able to do it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To this observer, video games are just an application of computing, and no more belong under technology than would television programs and music recordings belong under electrical engineering. They all are examples of entertainment media. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The header "Language and literature" is not working properly. A random sample of talk pages for those in the category show their GA nominee templates all use "Languages and literature" (plural languages, not singular), while the one new article that uses "Language and literature" as instructed—In Flanders Fields—has been placed by the bot in "Miscellaneous", where it does not belong. If the first word of the header should be plural, then the GAN page needs to be fixed, as does the one talk page; otherwise, it's the ten talk pages of the "Languages and literature" GAN submissions. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot currently recognises "Languages and literature" for categorisation purposes. I have asked the owner to change it to "Language and literature" to match the heading.[4] AIRcorn (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Glad to know the bot's on the way to being fixed, and that the new article cited above is being categorized properly. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Should we call for handcount on whether to revert this latest change?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not actively involved in this page, but it seems that a major change to the structure of something like Good Articles should only be made after discussion on the Talk Page and consensus has been obtained. Apparently there was no attempt to obtain such consensus. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed and consensus was reached (see the #Merging sub-sections heading above). It was up for three weeks before any change was implemented and no one disagreed. I even said I would make the change if no one objected a week before doing so. If the new consensus is that the old version is better then it should be changed back. I personally think the way it is set up now makes much more sense and we would be better off modifying it rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. BTW it is not simply a matter of reverting the change, but updating all the templates and bots. AIRcorn (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that we shouldn't do anything now. Let's wait for a month and then request feedback from every active reviewer out there.

P.S.: I actually don't notice most of the traffic from this talk page, as the Bot is editing WP:GAN very frequently, and traffic from here gets lost. May be we could move this page somewhere and interclude here?

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You can hide bot edits on your watchlist. AIRcorn (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I watch WP:WikiProject Software/Article alerts, and the only contributor there is bot. There probably are some other side effects that don't come to mind right away. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Alma (1966) messing up User:GA bot

Looking at the last seven edit summaries of Wikipedia:Good article nominations, Hurricane Alma (1966) seems to be messing up User:GA bot. It shows as new in the last seven edit summaries.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Gilbert is also messing up the edit summaries.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Revised summary: Every edit summary since 06:02, 23 February 2012‎ had included Hurrican Alma and every edit summary since 22:52, 23 February 2012‎ has included Hurricane Gilbert.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with nominator deleting GA1 review

Hi,

I was reviewing Douglas W. Owsley and all was going fine until I found multiple instances of copyvio/close paraphrase in the lede.I posted many instances from the lede on Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1 The nominator User:Cindamuse argued extensively that I was wrong, accused me of bad faith etc. Other editors were consulted: User:Worm That Turned and User:Dcoetzee and User:Moonriddengirl. The consensus was that the lede contained unacceptable copyvio/close paraphrasing, as posted on Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1 and Moonriddengirl's talk page.

Because of the many instances of close paraphrase/copyvio in the lede (I didn't evaluated the rest of the article because Cindamuse did not feel my findings were valid), and because Cindamuse is now accusing me on multiple pages of bad faith and other things, I didn't think I could continue working with her. I therefore failed the article and suggested that she renominate it and start over with a new reviewer.

Now Cindamuse is deleting Talk:Douglas W. Owsley/GA1 from the talk page of Douglas W. Owsley. I have tried to explain to her that the review is part of the article's history and the next reviewer needs to see what happened in the first reveiw. (I had also left some comments on prose problems.) Here is a link to the review in case she deletes it again. [5]

I'm open to any suggestions as to how I could have handled this better. I've reviewed at least 70 article and never had a nominator turn on me before. I admit this has been very stressful.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just my $0.02, but I don't think it's 100% necessary to transclude the GAN subpage onto the talk page. (We don't similarly transclude PRs, FACs, AfDs, etc.) But I did add {{ArticleHistory}} in place of the GA template, and in doing so, it has a link to the review subpage. Whether or not it stays transcluded, you are right that it is part of the article's history, and some link to it must remain. Unless the nominator is attempting to delete the review itself, I wouldn't stress about it. Thanks for your work on this article. Imzadi 1979 → 12:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess I overreacted and I apologize. I've come across GAs where the review was not linked and sometimes I could look through the talk page history and find it and link it, and sometimes I couldn't find it. So I'm not clear how reviews get lost. It's so important in reviewing an article to have access to any past reviews. As I don't understand how the article history gets set up, I didn't know how the linking works. Sorry for my denseness and thanks for you comments. Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Another GA bot issue

I just noticed that a reviewer placed {{GA|14:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)|topic=|page=1}} on Talk:Paterson's worms/GA1 instead of Talk:Paterson's worms. This caused GA bot to recognize the article as having failed. Meanwhile other editorial actions (either placing {{good article}} on the article page or listing the article at WP:GA) caused LivingBot to recognize the article as having passed. Are there checks in place for {{GA}} being malplaced on GAC talk pages?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

He to Hecuba Good Article reviews

I saw today that User:He to Hecuba was actually a sockpuppet of a banned user. He promoted an article that I had nominated for GA so I wasn't sure if I should have someone else re-examine the article. It looks like he conducted a few other reviews, as well:[6][7][8][9], is there a specific process that is followed when banned users conduct GA reviews? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Crosspost (see below). I was thinking the passed ones should be re-assessed and the review removed from the article history for the failed ones. Not sure whether they should be put back into the queue or not. I don't know of any process though. AIRcorn (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, we almost got an edit conflict there (your summary is much better than mine though). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

He to Hecuba

He to Hecuba (talk · contribs) was discovered to be a sock and had all his submissions deleted. Unfortunately these included some GA reviews. This means that currently there are articles passed as Good without any review and a few article histories with red links.

Failed

1. Lateran Council of 649
2. Cultural impact of Classical Greek homoeroticism
3. Dystopia (Iced Earth album)

Passed

1. Codex Basilensis A. N. III. 12
2. Early life of L. Ron Hubbard
3. The Rage Against God
4. Baelor

Under Review

1. Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

What is the best way to deal with this? I am away this weekend so unfortunately won't be able to help until Monday. AIRcorn (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Would Wikipedia:Good article reassessment be the best way to go about evaluating the ones he passed? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably. I would go for "Individual" though as the "Community" one is very backlogged at the moment (hint, hint). AIRcorn (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do Baelor since I've seen that episode. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Not fair to remove his GAN of Clement of Alexandria; suggest revert Aircorn's revert. I could watch the nomination reviewing procedure. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 12:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not just renominate it yourself? AIRcorn (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it is not allowed if the nominator has not edited the article. Anyway, I nominated the article.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Saint-Inglevert Airfield

I nominated the Saint-Inglevert Airfield article yesterday but its not showing up. The section link from the talk page to the transport section is not working either. I'd appreciate it if someone would sort out any error I may have made with the nom. Mjroots (talk) 03:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's showing up under the Miscellaneous heading, as the |subtopic= field has been filled in with something the bot doesn't recognise. GRAPPLE X 03:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, bot error then. It's exactly the same as that in the Railway accidents in Vietnam template, which is listed under transport. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really a bot error. The wrong name was just entered under subtopic.[10] AIRcorn (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugly (Sugababes song)

Anyone want to review the article? :/ - Till I Go Home (talk) 12:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review

Is there any policy or guideline which defines exactly what the qualification for a "major contributor" is? X.One ^SOS 12:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really. I generally go to the article's history page, and then look at the contributor list. That will tell you right away who has done the most edits and the timeframe of their last edits. That will often help you find who is "curating" an article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I have around 50 edits, all of which include mainly prose copy-editing, and zero content contribution, and an active presence in the talk page, does it entitle a license to review the article? X.One ^SOS 14:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Major contributors are generally those that have added content to an article, so if it is just vandalism reversion and copy editing you should be fine. If you are still worried, let us know what article it is and someone can double check your edits. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:GA bot down?

I just notified User:Chris G, but I think User:GA bot is not running. I just nominated Anthony Davis (basketball) and it did not notice. It has not updated WP:GAC for 4.5 hours, which is an unusually long time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

O.K. it is up now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Help?

Some first-time editor created a page to review The Lion King, and obviously never returned to review; now the only thing Talk:The Lion King/GA2 is doing is screw with the "launch GA review" templates in both WP:GAN and Talk:The Lion King. What's the solution, speedy deletion to allow for a fresh relaunch with a proper review, or someone else take over that page? igordebraga ≠ 04:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say you could just take over the review if you're already willing to do it. Deleting the review page is usually used when one's been abandoned and no one else has taken over, as it allows the article to retain its place in the queue but removes the "under review" tag from its listing, attracting new reviewers. If you want to do it now then deletion wouldn't be necessary, I wouldn't think. GRAPPLE X 04:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Technically, I can't take over as you can't review an article on which you are a major contributor (and as the note on the GAN page shows, the nom is a prime example of someone jumping the gun on me before I could finish the clean-up). igordebraga ≠ 06:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest deleting the review. The one comment can be moved to the talk page. Unless there is another way to archive this review and still keep its place in the queue. AIRcorn (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I went and moved the comments to the talk page so that the GA2 page could be deleted. There shouldn't be further problems in getting a review going (It was already back in the queue under 8 January) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

GA procedure

Can you please pass on GA how I can nominate. The template " seems to give me error message. --Philcha

What article are you trying to nominate. Adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=[put name of subtopic here]}} to the top of that articles talk page should do the trick. It should not go on the review page. AIRcorn (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Help Desk

I have sat on this for a while, but with the backlog building up it is probably a good time to bring it out. Like most projects here new members are important to replace those that leave and to generally help keep things running smoothly. It can be daunting though if you have never reviewed a Good article before. So I propose the introduction of a page dedicated to providing advice to reviewers. It will be a cross between a help desk and a noticeboard. I know this one takes on that role in some respects, but I feel a newer reviewer would feel more comfortable asking a question at a page set out solely for that purpose. Another advantage would be that keeping the information in a single place would make searching for answers a lot easier. I know I do that a lot at noticeboards before asking a question.

A few things still need to be sorted. The scope should probably be made clear. I think it should be solely for asking questions about the process and should make clear that it is not the place to request reviews, propose changes to the criteria or to argue over whether an article is Good (WP:GAN, WP:GACR and WP:GAR are available for that). If it is adopted I would like to advertise it (at least at the top of WP:GAN and in the screen that appears when you create a GA review). The most important thing for this to work is that editors are willing to watch the page and respond to any questions answered. Nothing would be worse than having this page and then no one answers or the same person each time.

I would like to incorporate a FAQ into this page too. I am thinking of using the one at the top of this talk page for starters. Dividing it up into sections that relate to the criteria could be a useful way to set it out (i.e "Alt text is not required for images" under the "Illustrated, if possible, by images" section). Any questions, thoughts or ideas? I have made a mock-up of how I think the page should be presented at User:Aircorn/Good Article mentor (the title will change to Wikipedia:Good article help desk if accepted). Feel free to edit it. AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion

The GA review of this article is not properly transcluded in the talk page. The reviewer had transcluded it manually when they reviewed the article for the first time. Further edits to the review were not reflected on the talk. I tried purging the talk page, no changes yet. Thanks in advance. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder

The talk page states that the article was listed/delisted, but does not link to the discussions. Where can I find those discussions?Smallman12q (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It was delisted with this edit. If you want to get it to Good standard I would suggest fixing the {{citation needed}} tags and giving it a good copy-edit before re-nominating it here. AIRcorn (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I could find no discussions relating specifically to the delist in the archives unfortunately. AIRcorn (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Video games- MOO II

I nom's "MOO II" in late 2011 but there' no sign that this for review. What is not OK?

Please also check that I nom of "Warcract: Orge vs Humans" in the QU. --Philcha (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Requesting input

Please tell me whether an article I nominated for FL belongs there or here at this section. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Other theatre, film and drama articles" is not being parsed as a valid GAN subtopic string

According to the current instructions in "How to nominate an article", step 1 says "Find the most appropriate subsection/subtopic from those listed on the right." The two available under "Theatre, film and drama" are "Episodes" and "Other theatre, film and drama articles". However, when the latter is used, the article is shunted into "Miscellaneous".

I initially thought the problem on "Pamela Barnes Ewing" was that the nominator had added an extra comma in "Other theatre, film and drama articles", but when the comma was removed, the article remained in "Miscellaneous". Not until I changed the subtopic to "Theatre, film and drama", the topic, as had been the instructions previously, did the article get placed properly under "Other theatre, film and drama articles".

Can this be fixed so "Other theatre, film and drama articles" works as advertised? (And the "Other music articles" subtopic should probably also be checked to make sure it is set up to work properly.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Writers, researchers, fact-checkers

Hey folks. User:Ocaasi has organized an opportunity for Wikipedians to get free access to a large online database. Here's the breakdown:

• HighBeam Research--an online, pay-for-use search engine for newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias has agreed to give free, full-access, 1-year accounts for up to 1000 Wikipedia editors to use. HighBeam has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications, most of which are not available for free elsewhere on the internet. Aside from a free 7-day trial (credit card required), access to HighBeam would cost $30 per month or $200 per year for the first year and $300 for subsequent years, so this is a wonderful, free, no-strings-attached opportunity. To qualify, editors must have at least a 1 year-old account with 1000 edits. Please add your name to the WP:HighBeam/Applications account sign-up page if you are interested.

Might help you with your next GA. The Interior (Talk) 18:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Mauritius

Is this article long enough for any chance GA? -- BCS (t · c · !) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The issue isn't one of length, but of covering the major topics, and on that basis I'd say "No". Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific? Which topics? Thanks, -- BCS (t · c · !) 02:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a big gap between the end of the Second World War and the present day, and a rather teasing comment that the Jews in Mauritius today "are unrelated to the Jews in Mauritius in the 1940s". Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I'll try to find something about it... -- BCS (t · c · !) 02:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

...to no avail. I think they just immigrated. Will the article be okay if I don't fill the gap? -- BCS (t · c · !) 02:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is OK as it is, but if you're asking me if it I think it meets the GA criteria then I'd have to say "No". Doesn't mean that it's not a good article though. Malleus Fatuorum 04:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

GA bot down?

WP:GAC has not been updated since 23:01. I have promoted one GAC to GA (Dan Leno) and nothing has happened.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you informed the bot owner? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Tamil Nadu/GA1 review was started by article nominator

I'm not at all sure what should be done, but User:Stausifr, who originally nominated Tamil Nadu for GAN—the GAN template was badly malformed, and I had to fix it on the article's talk page, which is why I've been paying attention—has just started a review of the article.

I think this is someone who is not clear on how this works: the review page says "The article complies with all the qualities to be a good article. Please add your comments and views whether or not the article can become a good article." Still, I suspect the review itself needs to be stopped so a new reviewer can take care of it.

Can someone who is versed in such matters take care of this? I have no experience in how to deal with a GAN gone so bizarrely awry. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagged it for deletion. AIRcorn (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What's with the numbers?

I haven't been going GA reviews as I probably should have been, maybe grabbing one or two the past couple months. I figured it would have again plateaued at 350 or so as it did before the last backlog drive. Instead, I see 415 articles waiting for a review and very few reviews actually taking place (for once abandoned GAs don't seem to be most of the number, so there's that at least).

I know this is brought up every few months, but after taking a hiatus, seeing those kinds of numbers actually intimidates me away from doing more; is there a way to get more reviewers in that we could think up that hasn't been discussed ten times prior? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the problem myself. Consequently, I've probably done more reviews in the last week than I did probably in the previous year, outside the backlog elimination drive. I know I'll get bored of it sooner rather than later, but while I am at it, I am trying to keep up with the growth of the Sports and recreation backlog. Resolute 01:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a policy that can help get reviews is that when someone nominates an article, they have to review something in return. Dough4872 02:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think quid pro quo reviewing is a good idea. 1) Good writers and good researchers aren't necessarily good reviewers. (Our reviews require some inspection of copyright licenses to satisfy the media requirement, for instance.) 2) New editors to this process won't necessarily know the criteria well enough to render a complete review until after they've had their work reviewed a few times. 3) QPQ would encourage some enthusiastic reviewers to pass questionable content in hopes that their own nominations are also promoted. 4) As a project wholly staffed by volunteers, we should allow people to contribute at their own comfort levels. Yes, we should encourage people to review more, but I don't think we can force them to do so with any expectation of good results. Imzadi 1979 → 03:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To help out with new editors, we should allow them 5 free nominations where they do not have to review an article in order to allow them to get used to GAN and the GA criteria. After getting 5 GA's, the editors would be required to review an article after nominating something. We should also keep on the lookout for drive-by reviews and re-review any articles that appear to have had one. Dough4872 03:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Imzadi1979. The huge problem with that is that so many people who nominate don't truly understand what's required for a good article as witness the problems in their own: prose issues, citations and types of sources, NPOV, close paraphrasing, the list is endless. We see this in DYK, where there's still controversy over the quid pro quo requirement: on the one hand, it does help get nominations reviewed, but on the other hand, a number of nominations are passed that turn out to have significant issues on various of the criteria. The DYK criteria are significantly less strict than those for good articles. If you set an automatic quid pro quo, I'd anticipate a goodly number of B- and C-class articles with the GA imprimatur in fairly short order. The DYK QPQ requirement also has the "first five DYK nominations are free, then a QPQ"; I've already noted the issues with that. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Bluntly, QPQ reviewing will result in a lower average quality of reviews. To go down this route, one would have to judge whether this is an acceptable tradeoff. Resolute 03:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say no, QPQ is an awful idea for GAN. Trying to fix a badly done GA review is actually far stressful then having the article sit there a bit longer. Plus, at least when a DYK is approved you see it. A reviewer could do a bunch of terrible GA reviews and not get noticed for months. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This may have only a minimal impact on the backlog, but what about having a bot done up? One that scans new nominations for maintenance templates and scans references for dead links. If it finds one, it would withdraw the nomination (rather than quick fail) and leave a note for the nominator outlining such problems and asking they be fixed before renomination. Someone could also possibly write a script that checks for some basic things - close paraphrasing of live references, status of images, and the like. Would that help speed up reviews/make it easier for newer reviewers to perform this task? Resolute 14:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO it's a bad idea. Most times the broken link just went unnoticed and could be easily repaired. I did that several times myself in articles I reviewed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:DEADREF, you are not supposed to remove dead URLs (except in specified circumstances). As a result, no GA should be failed over the presence of dead URLs in citations. "With a working URL" is not an item that you'll find anywhere in the WP:Good article criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A dead link in a fully filled-in citation just renders the source as accessible as a print-only newspaper, book or journal citation, in that it's taken on good faith due to its relative inaccessibility. The only difference is that a dead link can sometimes be repaired, and that's a bonus rather than an expectation. GRAPPLE X 00:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably we could duplicate the nomination info in the interested WikiProjects, so that the active members could easier discover the nominations. This requires quite a massive change in bots and some discussion on per-WikiProject basis, but it could work. Effectively, if this suggestion was implemented and the bot compiled a nomination log ("date: article1, article2...") I would patrol the log to make sure all relevant WikiProjects are aware of relevant GAs. As this change would also benefit WikiProjects, I think it could work. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what Article Alerts is for? Dough4872 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and GANs, peer reviews, article deletion requests, FACs, etc., all show up in the Artlcle Alerts section of the project. GANs appear shortly after they're submitted, are updated when a review starts, and then with the results when the review is over. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Article alerts are good, but they are too wide in their scope and their edit summaries are not as informative. As far as I can tell, only people interested in deletion discussion watch them. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

GAN barnstar

Sometimes I feel the need to award an editor with a WP:BARNSTAR for specifically great development of the article (eg. the editor alone expanded hopeless stub into a good article). As I noticed, some other reviewers are giving awards even more frequently. Though The Tireless Contributor Barnstar is OK, may be we should have a specific project-approved barnstar like this one? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Content Creativity" barnstar is another possibility, but it seems strange that there isn't a general barnstar for dramatically improving an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have bunches of barnstars and "wikilove" from GA reviews; that doesn't change my opinion. I'm not willing to review articles when there is no sign that the nominator has any involvement. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And neither will I. If an article needs a lot of work I'll usually draw attention to a few issues and see how the nominator responds. If there's no response then I'll fail the article. We're there to review, not to write a proper article. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about the cases when an editor dramatically improves the article and then nominates it, though if significant amount of work was timely invested in the article during the GAN process, that would also be the case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've no problem with this situation. If an editor picks up an existing article, shows interest in it and is willing to respond to reviewer comments, that's ok with me. I'd hate to see the "ask the owner first" policy of FAC. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Watch link in GA nominee template

I started the discussion about adding "watch the review" link to {{GA nominee}} on its talk page. Comments are welcome. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of GA nomination! My detailed feedback!

Abuse of Nominations
I feel only a regular editor / major contributor should have the right to nominate the article. Or, we should make some changes in the process!
Explanation
See Talk:Indian_Railways, the person who has nominated the article has hardly 2-3 edits in the article (and I doubt if he personally read the article completely or not). I have not started reviewing (not going to review), but, on the first look I found, the article has 7-8 dead refs, the article will need many more additional citation, Indic script should be removed according to recent consensus etc. In short, the article is not properly ready for GA. I feel the regular editors of the article will feel same!
And here is the problem, suppose you, I and some people are continuously working hard to improve an article, and we know we can make it a Good article in next few months, and also suppose we have some plannings and strategies too to improve the article.
But, suddenly, bang! A newbie in the article will come in and without even reading the article or discussing with anyone, he will nominate it for GA.
Problems

• Bad impression: The article will naturally will be failed by some reviewer. But, frankly speaking, if any of the articles where I am working hard gets GA failed tag for any guest/visitor editor's frenzy, I'll feel really depressed..
  
• Pending reviews: And as you know, another consequence of such nominations is- we have more than 100 pending review. I had nominated Swami Vivekananda (my only nomination so far) for GA, but, no one has started to review.
  
• Lack of knowledge of nominator: Since the nominator is not a major contributor of the article, he may not edit or correct the errors in the article as swiftly as a regular editor of the article can. He may not be aware of previous consensus/decision related to the article too! For example the article I just mentioned Swami Vivekananda, I have personally read the article so many times, if you tell me any sentence of the article, I can tell you in which section of the article you'll find it. So, a regular editor of the article always has much better knowledge on the article.
  
• Nominator may be unavailable: The nominator may not be available at the time of review, specially if it takes one or two months to start review.
  
• Attachment: An editor who has only 2-3 edits in an article may not have same feeling towards it what a regular editor has. From my POV, when Swami Vivekananda nominations will start, I'll try to attend it even my computer does not work! But, for any article where I am not a regular editor (example: ABC), I'll not feel very bad if the article get failed in GA.
  

Suggestion
Here are my suggestions

• The major contributors will have the first right to nominate an article. (it is already available, read next two).
• If someone who is not a regular editor of the article wants to nominate the article for GA, he must propose it in article's talk page first (that he feels the article is GA ready, and he wants to submit etc etc...) and wait for 3/5/7 days for comments from editors!
• If an irregular editor of the article submits the article for GA review (without any discussion in talk page), the article's regular editors will get a chance to take withdraw the nominations, but, the withdraw will not be tagged as "fail", it can be tagged as "unplanned" or "Not proposed in talk" or "vandalism" etc!
  

Thank you! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment from Mo Rock...Monstrous
Just to play devils advocate I will point out a few similar cases to the list above.

1. The articles Dan Bain and Émile Bouchard were nominated by a user who had only a few edits to it (clean-up, categories, etc.) but the article was in good shape and passed without needing many changes.
2. If a review is completed an editor can step in and make the changes or add additional comments to the GA review. For the article Sergei Shirokov I had not seen the nominator make any edits in a while so when the review was completed I left a comment on the review that if editor didn't respond in what the review felt was a reasonable amount of time I would step in and make the corrections based on the review, which I eventually did.
3. In the case of Patty and Selma a regular editor deleted the nomination template with the explanation of "far from ready"

3 out of the 4 cases all passed GA while it's not always an ideal situation there are times when a nomination from a "non-regular" editor results in the article reaching GA status when they otherwise would not have.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment from WhatamIdoing

"the article has 7-8 dead refs,"

Who cares?

Really, are GA reviewers the only editors in the entire encyclopedia who are still unaware of WP:DEADREF? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly not, as you obviously aren't either, nor of the GA criteria apparently. It's not the job of the reviewer to fix links without which the accuracy of the article can't be checked. In extreme cases the link may even be a fictional one, intended to deceive. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The absence of functional URLs to sources may mean that you have to visit a library, but there is no rule that GAs may not contain dead URLs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

In my experience libraries do not maintain archives of web sites, and it is not the reviewer's job to visit a library to help fix dead links; that would be the nominators job. As MathewTownsend says below, there are already far too many nominators who take credit for the work actually done by the reviewer as it is. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem with dead links? I normally fix all the dead links I can regardless of whether I review the GA nomination, participate in WP:AFD discussion or just search for some info of my personal interest on Wikipedia. Even worse, the links may become dead after nominator checked them and before reviewer started the actual review: several months may pass in between. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well bully for you. As for your question, it's the reviewer's job to decide whether the article meets the GA criteria or not, and if it doesn't then to point out why it doesn't and allow the nominator time to fix the problems. It's not the reviewer's job to fix the article, but it is the reviewer's job to at least spot-check a representative sample of the sources whenever possible, and if the links are dead that's not possible. If there are only one or two dead links supporting nothing of any great consequence I doubt any reviewer would be too concerned about that though. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned it above but it seems relevant here—a dead link in an otherwise complete citation just renders the source one which cannot be verified without a little legwork; a reviewer would likely not feel that print sources they cannot readily track down are unreliable, and an online source which would take a little time looking through archiving services, checking the same site in case a page has been relocated to a new URL, etc, is often no less verifiable than print sources which get a free pass. A reviewer does not have to do this, but if their only real objection is the difficulty of verifying sources then it should at the very least be left to the nominator to find replacements before an article is failed for it. Of course, there will inevitably arise situations in which a link is lost forever, but this isn't generally the norm these days. GRAPPLE X 18:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

But that's exactly what happens now. I've never seen an article failed exclusively because of an excessive number of dead links. Malleus Fatuorum 19:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no issue here. The reviewer's job is to check sources, not links. Anyway, in most nominations there are issues you can spot from the first look, and you are free to note one of such issues and fail the nomination on it in lack of response. If there are no issues you can spot like that, the article is probably worth fixing dead links. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec) What Grapple describes is (more or less) what should happen now. Instead, what frequently happens is that the reviewer demands that the editors at the article violate DEADREF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which is of course a job for the nominator, not the reviewer. Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is a "job" of whoever noticed it, regardless of GAN process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope, unrealistic. If an article is at GAN then it's the nominator's job. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree that it is up to the nominator to address the reviewers concerns, no matter what they may be. They can address them by either making the suggested fix or debating the comments relevance to the criteria. The level of editing a reviewer makes to an article is totally up to them. AIRcorn (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have quite literally rewritten articles at GAN to help them meet the criteria, but I won't ever be doing that again after having been thanked for my "copyediting". Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, you missed the point: it's not anybody's "job" to violate DEADREF. It's everybody's job not to violate that guideline.

Also, from the /FAQ, the nom isn't a special position. The nom's job is nominally over once s/he noms the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Ruby

Tito, I am sympathetic to your concerns. Most articles nominated by those who are not the primary editors seem to fail. Or we sometimes have a The Lion King situation where the primary editor is unhappy the article was nominated prematurely (as you also mentioned above). Rarely is a worthy article sitting without a GA or FA star (the primary editor(s) generally nominate it). I often wonder why GAN doesn't have a primary editor rule like FAC. If a drive-by nominator feels that strongly about getting an article recognition, I'm sure they could still find some significant content or improvements to edit into it.Ruby 2010/2013 05:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Tito Dutta

Yes, I feel, you/we need to make some changes in the process. Suggestion 2 and 3 might be helpful (see suggestions above) or something different. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Dmitrij D. Czarkoff

I disagree with the assumption that only the major contributors can nominate articles. The WP:GACR include nothing related to contributors, and Good Article status is not an award to particular contributor, but an admission of the article's compliance with the most basic standards of Wikipedia. The relation assumed to exist between the contributors and the assessment just doesn't exist at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, do you (actively) participate in review discussion when you are the nominator but not one of the primary contributors? I am interested to learn your opinion on those nominators, who are neither primary contributors of the article, nor you can find them in review discussion! --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 18:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I never nominated articles before I invested significant effort into them. Still one of the articles I worked on was nominated prematurely by another editor with much smaller amount of edits on it. He never participated in actual review. I did all I could to get the article to GA status before the reviewer came and implemented the suggestions from review page, so that the article was given GA status. And I can't tell anything on nominator – I just don't care him, I care the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment RJFJR (talk)

I nominated an article for GA because I thought it was very well written. It failed. Not because I wasn't a 'primary' editor on the article but because I didn't have experience with GA to recognize the problem. I learned from the experience. But this is saying I shouldn't have because I wasn't supposed nominate the article in the first place. Having an article you've worked on nominated for GA should be viewed as an honor: someone thinks you did a really good job. Being declined at GA should be information on how to improve it. RJFJR (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment MathewTownsend.

I always check to see if the nominator has edited the article. Experience has taught me that if they haven't made edits, they will not improve the article per the suggestions I take time to make in the review and my effort will have been wasted, and the article failed. Editors do take credit for GAs, list GAs on their user pages and when they run for admin etc., even if they did nothing but nominate the article and didn't contribute to its creation. Many times the reviewer rewrites the article enough to get it to GA, then the nominator takes the credit. These problems have made me leery of taking on reviews. I do many fewer now than when I started. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem of nominators claiming GA status as their personal achievement doesn't relate to WP:GAN. Effectively one can't tell the nominator from an already conducted review. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not my only complaint, although I see Malleus Fatuorum agrees with me (see above). My main complaint is that nominators who have made few if any edits to the article are usually not responsive to the review. Usually they do not address the problems, and quite often do not respond at all. Therefore, it's not worth the effort to review such articles. I think other reviewers have had the same experience, as I see such articles lingering in the GAN queue. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless the article is evidently flawed (and then you note the most severe issue, wait for 7 day and fail the nomination with a note like "much more issues exist, but solve this one first"), it always worth effort: once you've noted the issues someone could fix them and the article would become better. The whole GA process is not about adding +1 to "Achievements" section of one's talk page: we do it to improve Wikipedia, and in this regard every reviewers' effort is valuable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not been my experience. I write a detailed review and copy edit the article and nothing comes of it. No changes or comments are made, the review gets filed out of sight in the article history, and the article remains deficient. For me, I'm not willing to do it anymore. I used to do like 20 reviews a month. Now its just a few, and only for editors that I know are responsive. But I'm glad you are willing. Good luck! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Lobo

I completely agree with the original poster. I think it makes absolute sense that GA nominees should follow the same procedure as FA candidates, and require that they be initiated by a primary editor (or have permission from a primary editor). I believe this for the exact same reasons the OP laid out (particularly that it would help reduce the number of unprepared nominees), and I think your suggestions are very good and fair. --Lobo (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment Sabrebd.

I can see both sides of this one. On the one hand it is very frustrating to have an article sent to GA that is not ready. This has happened and I have requested removal, which is one solution. On the other hand my first every GA was almost totally written by me and just nominated by someone else without any consultation. It passed, and to be honest I may never have bothered with the process if that had not been done. Perhaps a system where regular editors can request withdrawal would be a solution. I think outlawing nominations by editors who are not regular editors would be very limiting in some cases. For some editors the article will never be ready.

I have simply removed some nominations from the queue after consulting with the major contributors. I see no problem with them doing this themselves if they disagree with the nomination. AIRcorn (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a system where regular editors can request withdrawal would be a solution.

I agree! And/or a system where an irregular editor will need to propose it in article's talk page first and wait for 5-7 days before starting nomination works!--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 01:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is that needed at all? The contributor who believes the article is not ready for GA, but still can't be reviewer due to amount of previous participation, may simply state his opinion on talk page, listing the concerns and possible future directions. That would save time to everyone and help resolve the issue without dispute. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would think WP:BRD applies. An article is boldly nominated (as a nomination by someone who has not contributed surely is) then it can be reverted and discussed. There is no point adding an article to the queue if it is a long way off and the regular contributors can be the best judges of this. AIRcorn (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mix up editing and reviewing: differences in processes require different regulation. IMHO, if we don't allow significant contributors conduct the review, we shouldn't allow them blocking it either. Long time contributors may not be neutral towards article and towards nominators, so entitling them to block nominations will definitely result in more problems then solutions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it would necessarily block them. They revert and if the nominator is serious about getting it to Good standard they will discuss it. If they are not serious they shouldn't be nominating it in the first place. We already have issues with nominators disappearing after submitting an article. If someone is blocking an article for personal reasons then that is a user conduct issue and I should be dealt with separately. AIRcorn (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

See, the situation when two editors that initially have pretty opposite thoughts have to come to some consensus over procedural issue is potentially more troublesome then the situation of pending review with pre-existing negative second opinion from an involved editor. In fact, if the opinion has proper grounds, the nomination may be quick-failed, so the real overload of WP:GAN is minimal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Andrei Sannikov/GA1 was started by article nominator

In this case, User:Tomtomn00 did the GAN, and then started the review a minute later..

This happened with another user recently, and someone here took care of it. Whoever does so, let me know whether you're dropping a note on Tomtomn00's talk page about the problem, or if you'd like me to do so. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This looks like one of the drive-by nominations discussed above. Just a scan would suggest that it is not ready (very short sections, citation needed tags and just a general lack of polish). I tagged the review G6 (technical), an admin will take care of it. This could serve as a test case with what to do with drive-by noms of unready articles. I would suggest removing the nomination and if the nominator reinstates it then leaving a note in the template. I will leave a note with Tomtom00 now. AIRcorn (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

is this considered an adequate review for passing a complex article?

Talk:Joint attention/GA1?

I ask because I considered reviewing it, but felt that an in depth review was needed, especially as the writer is a student ("This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Alberta—Augustana Campus supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term."). It's a psychology article and should follow WP:MEDRS. A major source for the article is a study of chimpanzees. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The reviewer has replied to comments on the review at their talk page, and says they found nothing else needed commenting on. I left a suggestion there to use a checklist so it is obvious that they have considered all the Good article criteria. From my read through just now I thought it was a pretty decent little article and nothing seemed to fall outside the criteria. In fact I would even argue that the one point made about the length of the lead was incorrect, it seemed about the right to me. AIRcorn (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Examples of possible problems:

• Are they concerned that 19 of the citations refer to animal studies?
• Are they concerned that the statement that a two month old is "Engaging in dyadic joint attention and conversation-like exchanges with adults during which each is the focus of the other's attention and they take turns exchanging looks, noises and mouth movements" is uncited?
• Are they concern that one of the other sources used in the article contradicts the time line presented here.[11]
• Are they concerned that the passive voice is frequently used?
• "Great apes such as orangutans and chimpanzees also show some understanding of joint attention." - so do dogs and other animals. This statement is misleading.
• "Dyadic joint attention can be thought of as a conversation-like behavior that individuals engage in. This is especially true for human adults and infants who engage in this behavior starting at two months of age. - this is cited to an article on chimpanzees (16 citation go to this article).
• Is there any indication that the nominator responded to the (minimal) suggestions that the reviewer made?
• The reference section needs copy editing.
• Pointing needs disambig, so the reviewer didn't even check that.

I'm not saying this is a bad article. It's a psychology article that needs to have the sources evaluated by WP:MEDRS criteria. I'm saying that it was superficially evaluated by a new editor (963 edits) not familiar with the subject who says it looks good so it's a GA. That's my concern. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone to give opinon please?

GA review Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi/GA2#Clarification_please
In the article, they have written like this:

• Cribb argues that
• Watson argues that
• Hay argues that Gandhi in London...
  

I suggested to write full name of these people since - surname like Watson etc is very common. One editor feels a) Full name is included in Reference section! b) "scholarly articles do not usually include information on the author's first name or status as "researcher". (Also note there is not any Wikipedia articles on most of these scholars or they are not linked). Any opinion? --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of just the surname in these contexts is common enough. If it's applied consistently then I see no problem with it personally, but perhaps this could be met half way with each name being qualified with a descriptor ("economist", "scholar", whatever is appropriate). GRAPPLE X 23:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I usually ask for a qualifier in this situation, otherwise I don't know why I should listen to whatever Hay, Watson or Crib are saying. I would also ask for the full name to be given at least in the first mention. AIRcorn (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The RS rules refers to the quality control process exercised by the scholarly community. Writing "XXX says ..." is a reference to the article ABC written by XXX that says these these things. The RS rules apply to ABC--the article-- (not to XXX) and especially the quality of vetting by the journal publishing it. WP:RS says: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. In other words, an article in a scholarly journal represents a viewpoint of the scholarly community, and not merely the opinion of XXX. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what Aircorn says above. Professional writing should recognize who audience is. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia aimed at a general audience so it is valuable to have a descriptor informing the general reader why this person's argument is relevant. Academic journals have a more specialized audiences so descriptors may not be necessary there. maclean (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The general audience is uninterested in the details about an obscure scholar it has never heard of. Rjensen (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of information that may not interest the "general audience", but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia articles should not include it. The point is to provide context to an expert's claims. To turn this around, it would not do to state "One notable critic argues that..."; this would facilitate the need of a [who?] tag, because it does not provide context as to why that particular critic's opinion matters. While writing high-quality, academic articles one should be able to explain why so-and-so is being referred to directly. Otherwise, why mention them by name at all? Usually all it takes is a quick introduction to provide context, such as "Somebody Important, who wrote the article "Some Article", argues that..." or "The author of "Some Book", Somebody Else, argues that..." María (yllosubmarine) 13:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

why mention authors by name in the first place?--because it is recommended by WP:INTEXT especially when paraphrasing the point of an article. Rjensen (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

When I said "otherwise, why mention them by name at all?" I meant that rhetorically, with the obvious implication being that names should of course be included along with any appropriate descriptors needed to provide context. I'll also add that such additional information creates a more well-rounded article, and requires very few extra words as well as little work on the contributor's part. Why not include context? María (yllosubmarine) 13:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"why not include context"? that's vague: what context--the academic job status of the author when he wrote the article back in 2002 or 1974 or 1923 or whenever? Or maybe a description of the journal back then? That's not typically done in either academic history or popular history. The author's name is always provided so that's not an issue.Rjensen (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

it's the scholarly journal article that is the RS and the article is fully referenced in the footnote. Wiki rules say to name the author when you're doing a "close paraphrase". How close are the paraphrases??--well everyone has his measuring rod but there will be some people with a very short rod who say the paraphrase is "too close", so adding the name takes care of that issue. Rjensen (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If the "general audience" is uninterested in the details of the scholar, don't bother including the scholar's name in the text, and don't paraphrase so closely that it's required. If you have to call out the name because you are presenting an opinion, tell us why this person's opinion is important enough to include: is s/he a historian (who has specialized in the subject, or not), a (possibly partisan or revisionist) biographer, a specialist in a scientific field, a politician, or what? You don't need to use a lot of words to do this: "LASTNAME claims" --> "[Qualifiers] Historian/Biographer/Whatever FIRSTNAME LASTNAME claims" doesn't take up much more space. (Interestingly, when I see text with the sort of styling being discussed here, I am almost always able to trace it to the presence of Rjensen in the article history. This suggests it is not a style widely used by others on Wikipedia.) Magic♪piano 15:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

we include the author's name to comply with WP:INTEXT The purpose is to credit the RS explicitly, which is a high Wiki priority. As far as general audiences are concerned, mostly they don't like footnotes at all, but footnotes are required by Wiki rules. As for my personal taste, the material I write for popular audiences has no footnotes whatever, but my scholarly books and articles are loaded with footnotes. Rjensen (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think an article that keeps using the phrase "[lastname] argues that" has prose style problems to begin with. Aside from that, I agree with the majority here that the first and last names should be used in the article text the first time the person is mentioned for whatever reason—last name only thereafter unless dealing with two people with the same last name in the article—and would appreciate an initial one-word description of who this person is that has been introduced into the text so I know what authority this person has: historian, contemporary (ally, opponent, disinterested observer), and so forth. On a completely different note, when I looked at the article in question, I noticed that some names are linked more than once in the body of the text, a WP:OVERLINK issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Pilot (Sports Night)

The nominator and main editor of "Pilot (Sports Night)" has sign up to review it. Am I missing something?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No you're not. (From rules on this project page, under How to review an article) "When choosing an article to review, keep in mind: you cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review" MathewTownsend (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

However, I don't know how to remove his name as the reviewer. Do you? MathewTownsend (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Aircorn gave me a nice explanation three items up on this page; I've run into this sort of thing twice in recent days. At the moment, it looks like the review page is gone; I just cleaned up the article's talk page so the review won't show up on the GAN page any more, and left a note on the article talk page about what was done and why. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

hey, BlueMoonset! HOW did you clean up the article talk page? I fiddled and fiddled with it. (I did put a delete request on the review page.) But nothing I could figure out for the talk page got rid of the reviews name! MathewTownsend (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to remove the "onreview" string from the |status= parameter, leaving it empty. When that parameter's empty, the bot cleans out any review information from the GAN page. That status parameter's the same one where you change the value to "hold" from "onreview" when a review is put on hold. My change didn't show up in a "diff" because I moved the GAN to the top of the talk page, where it's supposed to go. Sorry about that! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I swear I did that! Maybe I didn't wait long enough for the bot to catch it (or maybe I'm a dimwit!) Thanks for the explanation, as next time I'll remember it clearly - I hope. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem with Talk:Structuration/GA1

It seems to me that <the nominator is the reviewer, and have already passed the article. This needs a proper review, I assume the nominator is AGF confused with regards to the procedure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems I was mistaken, and everything is in order, although I do find the review rather curt. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that a number of articles on psychology are being nominated for GA review, and then passed with a perfunctory, inadequate review by users inexperienced with the GA process. Since this article is for the Education Program: "This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term." (See talk page), a proper and through review should be done by an experienced reviewer, and one familiar with WP:MEDRS.

"Supplied initial copy edit. However, several direct quotations appear in the article, which are in need of page numbers added to the citation." is not a complete review and doesn't address all the GA criteria. This type of review is definitely sending new Education Program students the wrong message.

A review given to an Education Program a few days ago consisted of: "Looks fine. The lead may be a liitle long. You may consider moving some of the more detailed information in the lead to lower sections to further improve it." I had to redo the review and meanwhile the article was delisted. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Joe's Garage

Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs), the nominator of Joe's Garage, has just been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet before I could finish the review. Should I still finish the review? My gut says I should finish it regardless of who nominated it, and give it a fair go. What say you? Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What's the downside to finishing your review, assuming you're willing to put forth the effort? Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

None, I guess, but I don't think it will pass in its current form. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Then leave your comments as normal, and if they're not dealt with in seven days then either fix them yourself or fail the article. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Leave a note with the relevant talk pages asking if anyone else will respond to any issues you identify or can't resolve? Resolute 03:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Note, the article is currently on hold, however, User:Friginator is providing some input on his talk page, which is most appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Lectionary 179/GA1: review reopened after being failed last year

For reasons I don't quite understand, GA1, which had been failed by Puffin last year, was reopened on April 18 by reverting the talk page to its pre-fail state by the same Puffin. There were edits to the article later that day and since, but the fact that the article was failed has been erased.

It seems to me that the article should have been submitted for a completely new GAN. Right now it appears that the article has simply remained on hold for 179 days. Something definitely needs to be done here, but I'm not sure how—if we copy the current GA1 contents with the new updates as a GA2, and restore the GA1 result, then who gets credit for the second nomination? BlueMoonset (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they could start a fresh review (though the last review started in November last year)! --Tito Dutta ^Message 19:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have informed Puffin of this thread, but from what I can gather Puffin decided she was too hasty with the original fail and was advised by SilkTork (talk · contribs) that they could reopen the review (as one of three options). It does look a bit weird at WP:GANR with the 150 day hold and I think a better option (especially since it was failed quite a few months ago) would have been for the nominator to re submit, with Puffin taking on the new review. However it is not a big deal and it should be closed one way or another in a couple of days if the week timeframe is adhered to. AIRcorn (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of the three options available, I recommended this one as being the easiest to implement as it required a simple modification by the reviewer and no action by the nominator, and the review could continue as a hold rather than a fail. If another option is taken up, and the article fails then it will look like the article failed twice, when in fact it would have failed only once. I left a note on the template that the review was on hold from 18 April 2012‎, though perhaps, in retrospect, I could have explained more. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Good to know. The process makes sense if the reviewer believes the review was closed too quickly and should be given another chance. It looks like progress is being made; there were a spate of edits in the past 24 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Passing ones own article as a GA

This editor User:Philades passed there own articles as a GA in 2009 in these edits [12]. I have removed it. Are there processes in place now to prevent / detect this sort of activity?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Alaska Airlines

At Talk:Alaska Airlines/GA1, it appears the nominator is reviewing their own GAN. Dough4872 03:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Split Biology and medicine

Would it be possible to split these two? Biology and medicine are two very different fields. It would make things easier to follow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this suggestion and support separating this into two categories. MathewTownsend (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. There are relatively few medicine-related items in the list at any given time, and a list of two to five pages seems a little silly. Putting them all together makes me more likely to review non-medicine-related articles. Also, identifying the dividing line (where do you put anatomy? physiology? vet medicine? alt medicine?) could be difficult.

If you want to follow WPMED's GANs, then try Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts#GAN instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks will keep an eye on that. Would propose spiting Biology (plant, animals, fungi etc. from human related topics) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It is possible, the Music and TF&D cats were split a couple of months ago. If it is done Chris (talk · contribs) (the owner of GA bot) needs to make the change and Dvandersluis (talk · contribs) needs to be notified so that WP:GANR can be updated. Dvandersluis is not very active so it would pay to get in touch with him first. Some templates will need to be modified and there will be a bit of cleanup needed, but the previous split of Music and TF&D was relatively painless. If this goes ahead Warfare nominations should also be split out of History at the same time. This has already been done at WP:GA. FWIW I would support a split and help out where possible. AIRcorn (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the TF&D still has artifacts: logically, using the visible category "Other theatre, film and drama articles" as the subtopic is the proper thing to do; in actuality, you must use "Theatre, film and drama" as your subtopic to get it to go to the "other" category. I believe the same is true with Music, but I'm not sure. At the moment, the choice of subtopic is counterintuitive. Not sure which of the two should be notified. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Using {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Other Theatre, film and drama articles}} when substituting the template should still work, it is only a problem when it is used after substitution. I have updated the subtopics to try and lessen confusion[13]. An alternative could be to make Other Theatre, film and drama articles the default, but that would need to be done by GA bot (talk · contribs) AIRcorn (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, too many people try to assemble their own templates without substitution, so when they mess up—or even if they get the subtopic right—they would fail for these two Other categories. I figured out what I had to do to fix them by trial and error, and now I know how to fix them. Could the bot be made to understand that both versions—"Theatre, film and drama" and "Other theatre, film and drama articles"—funnel into the "Other" category? It would make this more bulletproof. I suspect not, given that the bot is case-sensitive, and will dump a nom into Miscellaneous if the wrong letter is capitalized or lowercase in a subtopic. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You would have to ask Chris about how the bot works. AIRcorn (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Four months

Can someone help tackle the articles that have been waiting four months for a review, eight of them to be exact? I'm doing my best to hit them, but my wiki time is limited and the increasing backlog is taking its toll mentally. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Just found User:Choess/BIO341 with new editors and new articles. Will knock over a few of these and then get to some GANs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Minimum number of edits before nominating a WP:GA

Should we require that the nominator has made a minimum number of edits to Wikipedia as a whole before nominating an article for GA? Discussion is here [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Having just crabbed about this at DYK, I think it's a more reasonable proposal here. Anyone reasonably intelligent should be able to start and account one day and write a well-sourced, copyvio-free article, which is essentially what's needed for DYK, but deciding whether an article might be a GA does require an editor to be somewhat in tune with community standards, so there's a better case for such a minimum. Choess (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this, but per WP:BURO is this a present problem that needs to be handled via such a rule? Might we be better off with general advice in the nomination process documentation that success at GA tends to increase as an editor has more experience with Wikipedia norms and expectations? Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Jclemens. Is there evidence that the current system isn't working as things stand? Or is this just intended to head off a possible future situation? If the latter, then I'd prefer to see evidence of a problem first and respond at that time. - Bilby (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Over 400 articles waiting for a review suggests that their is some room for improvement. This appears to be aimed at student nominations and from my experience with them they are a very mixed bag and overall tend to be a drain on our limited reviewer supply. AIRcorn (talk) 11:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support something like this as someone should not be nominating articles in their first few edits. Although at this stage I don't know what the minimum number of edits should be and how this would be enforced. AIRcorn (talk)

A couple of recent articles that where nominated with no response from the nominators include: Patient participation, Familial aortic dissection (which still needs more time and probably should have been a merge), and Still's murmur (which also need more time) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW could we program the bot to only accept and post nominations from people who have made X number of edits?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy for the idea, in the end, I think it is a bad idea.

All of the "pro" arguments are addressed and rebutted in the FAQ at the top of the page: The nom didn't respond? Who cares? The nom isn't required to respond. There are a lot of noms waiting for reviewers? That just means that we reviewers get our pick of subjects. A newbie won't know whether an article meets the criteria? So what! It's not the nominator's job to make that determination.

The job of the nominator is simply to say, "Hey, I think that this article probably qualifies, so someone else should look at it." That's it. Even an IP is capable of doing that.

I think what needs to change is the reviewers' willingness to fail articles that don't meet the criteria. It's no fun to fail articles, but when it's appropriate, it should be done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The reviewer who spent an hour or two reading, evaluating and commenting on an article cares if there is no response. The problem with the backlog is not just the number, but that some are over four months old. As opposed to what the FAQ says, it doesn't show that many nominators want to use GA. It just means that some articles stick around for a long time. Having a smaller wait time would actually encourage more nominations, as evidenced by the rapid increases after backlog drives File:Good Article Backlog graph 2011.jpg.

We need to make it easier for reviewers to review, not for nominators to nominate. That is where the bottleneck is. You say "A newbie won't know whether an article meets the criteria? So what!". I say anyone who nominates an article should at least be familiar with what is expected of a GA. Preventing newbies from nominating articles would reduce the backlog, taking mostly poorly nominated articles out of it, and prevent any potential biteyness of a quick fail. AIRcorn (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have just received an email requesting that I pass an article as GA as the student needs the marks and without it she may fail University. So not cool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. At this point I'm wondering if we should prohibit any student classes where the goal is to make an article GA unless we know in advance and can work with it. I'm seeing more and more student assignments and those are usually the ones where the reviewers need to do a lot of work. We can't even keep up with the non-student articles. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As much as I like this process it can be a fickle beast and no ones grades should hinge on passing a GA (assuming the email is the truth). Having a relatively low edit minimum will cull a lot of the problematic articles and have very little effect on the good nominations. AIRcorn (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Aircorn, the reviewer's job is to see whether the article meets the criteria or not. If it takes an hour or two to come to that conclusion, and the answer is no (and "I need someone who is willing to fix these problems" is "no"), then the reviewer needs to be prepared to fail the article. I grant that it's not much fun, but in my experience it's actually quicker than collaborating on improvements and therefore doesn't contribute to the backlog.

And along those lines: It sounds like the student who contacted Doc James might deserve to fail her course. It's unpleasant to tell someone that, but whether she passes is not our reviewers' concern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've quickfailed a number of student GAN nominations, and I'm not going to apologise for it. There were several that had tags on them ranging from stubs to other problems. These were present at the time of the nomination. I don't think a single one that I failed was fully sourced. Several had student done peer reviews where it was clear the students were NOT reviewing the article with an idea of working towards GA passing. In many cases, the students made a few edits to the articles and all on specific dates where it was being done in or around class time. It wouldn't be possible to work on the GA in a timely manner with out the nominator doing the work and since these articles appear to be nominated as part of course assessment, I feel really, really uncomfortable doing the student work to help them get a passing mark. There were a few articles obviously not ready as they were not fully sourced, violating WP:MEDRS, not following WP:MEDMOS, had student led peer reviews which didn't address the GAN criteria and for medical articles had very few sources. I put them up for peer review with the hope that some one could HELP students before they nominated. I haven't checked but I strongly suspect the students nominated the articles anyway. Erk. I'm willing to do the work to help people pass a good article... but for some one who will show up once a week, who has not checked their article at all against the criteria for their first nomination? No. Quickfail them. Their grades are not our concerns. If they WERE concerned, they would have read the criteria to begin with. (Though I'm all for blaming the instructors who don't appear to be telling students what the criteria are.) --LauraHale (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's enough for the instructors to tell them what the criteria are. After all, the criteria are linked on the nominations page, so the students can read them. I think it would be more useful to give the students examples of GAs on a similar topic, so they can see what those criteria mean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained removal

It appears the bot removed a bunch of nominations from the page randomly. Dough4872 21:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It has reverted itself. Dough4872 22:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Help please! URL in Template:GATable

I want to add this text in 5.Stable in Template:GATable in Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi/GA2:

On 23 March [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=483547628&oldid=483512859 a large portion was deleted] which was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=483549386&oldid=483547628 fixed on the same day]. If we see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&action=history article's history], we'll notice editors of this article are constantly working to improve the article. <br/>Comparison of article versions:<br/>*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=490479154&oldid=479887271 3 March and 3 May– time difference 2 months]<br/>*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=490479154&oldid=485313547 3 April and 3 May— time difference 1 month]<br/>So, it can not be said, the content of the article does not change by day to day. But, an article which gets more than 300,000 digital footprints each months, it is not very uncommon. And most of these edits in last two months are constructive. I'd like to give a ¾ pass here.--~~~~

In the template it is told, Put "3=" at the beginning of any comment containing such a url, else it shows Pending... but where should I put this "3=" exactly? Wherever I am putting this I am getting text "pending". Can anyone help? Feel free to test in the Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi/GA2 page! --Tito Dutta ^Message 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? --Tito Dutta ^Message 17:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

3=On 23 March [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi&diff=483547628&oldid=483512859 a large portion was deleted] which ... AIRcorn (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

GA promotions out of process

RomeAntic14 (talk · contribs) has attempted to promote Selena Gomez, Rihanna, "TTYLXOX", and "Something to Dance For" to WP:GA this weekend without putting any of them through the WP:GAC process. I have reverted article, talk page and Wikipedia:Good articles/recent‎ edits for all instances. Please help me keep an eye on this guy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User has been blocked for one week for persistent copyvios. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Quickfailing

I was thinking it might be useful to make the quickfail criteria more obvious. So far it is mentioned in Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, but I propose moving it to its own section of the criteria. This could be one way of encouraging the reviewers' willingness to fail articles that don't meet the criteria (mentioned above). I also proposed some rewording of the proposal at the talk page, which so far has not got any response.

I have also recently requested a clean up listing of GAN nominations here. It could be useful in finding article that may meet the quickfail criteria. Caution should be used however as it is only updated once a week so some tags might no longer be present and it includes tags that fall outside the criteria. Also some articles are tagged after nomination either by reviewers or other concerned editors and time should be allowed for these to be addressed by the nominator. It is useful for finding those articles nominated with outstanding tags. I have commented on the talk page of some of the worst offenders. AIRcorn (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Done.[15] AIRcorn (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This proposal for a major change to the GA criteria didn't attract much attention. Do we all want to have the actual WP:Good article criteria page start off with a long list of reasons for quickfailing nominations (now at WP:GACR#Quickfails? I'm not convinced that it's such a good idea, but I'm open to other people's views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying to request second reviewer

I'm trying to request a second reviewer for Talk:Wildwood (novel)/GA1. This didn't work; the bot deleted it. So I changed the talk page template and next thing you know the Bot has passed it. Why? Can somebody explain? How do I fix it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I got it right now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what the procedure is for the nominator to request a second reviewer, which is what you're doing, vs. the reviewer doing so, which is what the 2ndopinion field is designed for. With any luck, someone will stop by who knows. I just fixed the "note" field you filled so it now shows up on WP:GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Article passed by original reviewer and is now listed as a Good Article. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If Dennis Bratland thinks it should not have been passed then take it to WP:GAR for a community re-assessment. Please follow the instructions at that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO, Mr. Bratland is purposefully disrupting the GA process. He has twice blanket reverted my reviewed version[16][17] and has been completely unable to support his reverts other than to make strange claims about how I'm promoting my own work, which is ridiculous since Mr. Bratland is the primary author and contributor. Mr. Bratland is operating under the erroneous assumption that a reviewer should not copyedit or fix the article under review, and he insists, in so many words, that he should be able to act as both nominator and reviewer. As if that wasn't enough, Mr. Bratland has said that if I do not pass his version of the article, then I must delist it. It appears that Mr. Bratland is not open to reason. I am more than happy to take Mr. Bratland's concerns into account and work with him on the talk page so that we can come to a reasonable solution, but Mr. Bratland has failed to provide the slightest rationales for his continued reverts on the talk page. I have now twice restored the article and I would like the community to get involved at this point. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the history I would suggest that you have gone beyond copyediting the article. AIRcorn (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me a diff or two to put me in my place? About the only thing original I added was a brief restatement of the plot summary in the lead, which amounts to 36 words or so, which merely summarizes the plot according the majority of sources. So, I do not agree that I have "gone beyond" copyediting at all. In fact, I will maintain, unless shown otherwise, that I have stayed entirely within the framework of copyediting. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between the reversions is more than 36 words and you have made 85 individual edits to the article. The lead has almost been completely re-written, the plot has been severely reduced, sections have been moved around and split, section headings have been changed and quote boxes have been moved. Others may disagee, but I say this is more than simply copy-editing and definately goes beyond the requirements of a reviewer. You would have been better off making these suggestions at the review page and allowed Dennis to comment or make the required changes. The fact that you are reverting to your preferred versions further indicates that you are not just acting as a reviewer. AIRcorn (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not acting as a reviewer, what I am acting as? I have zero interest in this topic. Should I remove it from my watchlist? I would be more than happy to do so if you take complete responsibility for it from here on out, as I stand by my review and copyedits. Please say yes! For the record, I most certainly do not support Mr. Bratland's version, and I will not have my name associated with passing it. I will be sincerely grateful for anything that will distance me from his version of this article. If you promise to take over the reassessment, I will vanish like a butterfly in the wind. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, yes. Feel free to keep it on your watchlist and make any further comments you wish, I think you had a point about the plot length and some of the wording in the lead. AIRcorn (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm done. I hate leaving it in your lap like this, but I think it is in good hands. Considering your expertise and experience, this sounds like a win-win. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Procedure for requesting a second opinion?

So, is there a procedure for requesting a second opinion on a nomination that hasn't passed yet? As ChrisGualtieri and I (one of the main contributors, though not the nominator who has disappeared from the radar) have a difference of view as to whether "Presidential Council for Minority Rights" lacks neutrality, I think a fresh pair of eyes might be helpful. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Within the {{GA nominee}} template on the talk page change "status=onreview" to "status=2ndopinion". This will mark it on this page and at WP:GANR. A section containing some specifics as to what is required on the review page will help the person supplying the 2nd opinion. The decision to pass or fail the article will still be up to the original reviewer, although there is always the WP:GAR option if this decision is strongly disputed. AIRcorn (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. (I think I misunderstood the instructions. I thought it was the second reviewer himself or herself who was supposed to change the status to "status=2ndopinion".) — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

GABot

The bot is down, I have lefty a note on the operators talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And it is now fixed, i think. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And apparently down again. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The "on hold" icon is not appearing. Glimmer721 ^talk 00:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Likewise the 2ndopinion icon. In fact, the onhold and 2ndopinions are all displayed as reviews. I've mentioned it on the GA bot talk page; they'll display correctly again once the bot is fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot just ran at 05:03 and 05:13, and the second run restored the onhold and 2ndopinion values in the GAReview templates. No idea if it will keep running, but the restoration of the other values is a hopeful sign. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The bot's not down, but right now it's going insane, taking off 5kb and re-adding it back in 10 minutes later seemingly randomly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The bot is definitely not operating as it ought. I dropped a note on the talk page about six hours ago. With any luck, Chris will figure out what's gone amiss and fix it. In the meantime, if a GAN listing has gone missing, or a reviewer's name is suddenly Unknown, wait ten or twenty minutes and it will probably fix itself. The template data for the GAN on the article talk pages is unaffected by the bot's gyrations, as best I can tell. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The RFC bot has done something similar in the past, and I believe that the GA bot was written from the same base code. At least it seems to repair the problems fairly quickly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Those issues should now be resolved. There are however some other issues relating to the accuracy of the edit summaries which I am still working on. Sorry. --Chris 06:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fishy GAN

(moved from AN) Structuration was passed as GA recently, and sent to GAR. The reviewer at GAR (Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Structuration/1) said, "The article was created as a student project and was then promoted to GA by the student's supervisor. I think this is procedurally problematic. Two other editors made comments during the GAN which do not appear to have been addressed." A copy edit was requested immediately afterward, which brought up a lot of issues (see Talk:Structuration#Copyedit).

The promotion to GAN seems extremely problematic and out of process. Since process was so egreigously bypassed here, could this not be "speedy delisted" without having to sit in the GAR queue? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Is that even a legitimate article? It looks almost like a hoax. Looie496 (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a legitimate article, but its promotion to GA clearly isn't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it time to do something about student nominated GAs. While I would be happy nuking them entirely we need some way to at least separate the wheat from the chaff. AIRcorn (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So is it okay for me to just delist this on sight? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It is at WP:GAR so let's wait for nominator and reviewer to comment at WP:Good article reassessment/Structuration/1. I agree that the article is not of GA standard. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I note also that there appears to be a problem with ill-prepared nominations from from educational assignments. I have failed several such sub-standard articles recently. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have commented upon this at WT:Ambassadors#Sub-standard articles nominated at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think an individual GAR would be sufficient for these obvious cases. "Allow time for other editors to respond" could be as short as a couple of days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Or it could be an eternity, since Meclee hasn't edited at all since May 3. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to wait for the response, just give enough time for them to respond. A week is usually sufficient. AIRcorn (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:World Health Organization/GA1

User:FocalPoint left this note

• Please continue / finalise the review. --FocalPoint (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

on my talk page, not noticing the banner stating that I am on holiday until 12 June, so perhaps someone else would like to step in? Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Got the same note. I am willing to look over the article, unless anyone else is keen. AIRcorn (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Renominating without prejudice

It seems that Hahc21 (talk · contribs) is picking fights with me about my WP:GAC nominations in the WP:SONG area. He has quickfailed both "Cat Daddy" (and started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Daddy‎) and "Zou Bisou Bisou" in a manner that leads me to believe he wants to pick a fight rather than evaluate the content. Having been through several hundred WP:GAC reviews. I know the difference between fair evaluations and unfair ones. I am renominating "Cat Daddy without making any changes and will be considering doing the same for "Zou Bisou Bisou" to the article and posting notice of my decision to do so here for all to see.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that another reviewer will find the same conclusion as i did if both articles are not improved. If the new reviewer might like to know the reasons why "Cat Daddy" failed the process, such reasons are correctly documented on the talk page, on the GA Review and GA nomination sections. The discusion that arose, and which led the user to re-nominate the articles, are also well documented on the article's entry on the deletion log. The reasons why "Zou Bisou Bisou" failed, are well documented on the tak page of such article. After overseeing and studying in scrutiny more than 3500 review processes, of which the majority are music articles, i'm confident my work is unbiased, and my review is very accurate on the matter. Thanks. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I looked at Hahc21 (talk · contribs)'s user and talkpages and found that ten GAN reviews had been done, with three in progress and a "GAN mentor" flag. I also looked at some of the reviews and they were good. However:

I found in one review:

• "And so on, bad prose on every statement. Also, it seems like its written as an advertisement, and biased."

and I found in another:

• "... Only one little detail. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide recommends a "singles" sub-section explaining an overview of the singles released from the album. Also, as the singles weren't as successful and covered enough to carry out an article of their own, they must be included on their parent album....".

That reviewer is aware of the requirements to review against WP:WIAGA and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Mistakes to avoid in reviews, but these two comments appear to be suboptimal; in one case non-compliant with WP:WIAGA and not representative of other reviews carried out by the same reviewer. I can understand a nominator being upset. Hopeful, they were will not be repeated in other reviews. I have no interest in these topics, so I don't see myself reviewing Cat Daddy or Zou Bisou Bisou. Pyrotec (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How to review an article change to discourage reviewers from going beyond minor edits?

This is something that some might consider obvious and unnecessary, while others might think it's not so obvious. Therefore it should be stated explicitly that reviewers create a conflict of interest when they rewrite too much of an article during review, and so should request a second reviewer if they have made more than WP:MINOR edits. This is not to limit the right of anyone to edit; it's a (soft) limit on the role of reviewer. Suggested changes in red:

How to review an article

When choosing an article to review, keep in mind:

• that only registered users may review articles—make sure you are logged in;
• you cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review;
• you should not pass an article that was put on hold by another editor without assessing the problem;
• nominations towards the tops of the lists are older, and should be given higher priority, except where the nominator has other articles under review.

1. Start a review page, either by following the start review link in the nomination's entry on this page, or by using the link from the template on the article talk page. If you wish, you can add an initial review or other remarks to the bottom of the review page before saving it. A bot will change the Good article nominations page to indicate that you are reviewing the article.
2. Before reading the article in detail, check it for immediate problems. If you believe a detailed review is premature, add your reasons to the review page and use the fail process; otherwise continue with the next steps.
3. Read the whole article, and decide whether it should pass or fail based on the Good article criteria. You can also put the article "on hold" or ask for a second opinion.
4. Provide a detailed review of the article on the review page. If you wish, you can organize your critique using checklists such as {{subst:FGAN}}, {{subst:GAList}}, {{subst:GAList2}}, {{subst:GATable}} or {{subst:GAHybrid}}, and inform the nominator of your actions using {{subst:GANotice}}.

Where the article meets the Good article criteria, explain why, and give suggestions for further improvements if appropriate. Where it does not meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article. If a problem is easy to resolve, can be resolved with minor edits, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. If you do a significant rewrite or reorganization yourself, it is better not to pass the article, and instead request a second opinion (below).

Review carefully—see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles for more advice. You may also wish to consult a mentor.

Pass [...no changes...]	Fail [...]
On hold [...]	Second opinion If you are unsure whether an article meets the Good article criteria, or have become a significant contributor to the article, you may ask another reviewer or subject expert for a second opinion: On the talk page of the article set the GAN status parameter to "2ndopinion" as in {{GA nominee|...|status=2ndopinion}} Don't forget to specify on the review page what needs to be done.

• Where the article meets the Good article criteria, explain why". Huh? Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's the current text. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  Then it should be removed. Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Boldly make the change? Support? Oppose? Different wording? Needs an Rfc? My sense is it's a fairly trivial change and should be done unless significant opposition appears. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. My understanding based on many reviews is that an article is assessed against the criteria (for GA) and there are three possible courses of action: (1) the article is compliant, so pass it; (2) the article is considered capable of being brought up to standard in a reasonable time (1 or 2 weeks at the reviewer's discretion), so put it On Hold and re-review at the end of the hold, and then pass or fail, (3) the article is non-compliant so it fails. The suggested new text, i.e. "If you do a significant rewrite or reorganization yourself, it is better not to pass the article, and instead request a second opinion" seems to imply that the article is non-compliant and that it is OK for the reviewer to do significant work to bring it up to a pass. The only "safe" approach is to fail it, correct it and renominate yourself. Certainly not, what is implied here: "it looks like a fail, I'll fix it and ask for a second opinion. The lead reviewer, is not bound by the comments of others, including second opinions, and has the final say at that nomination on whether the article passes or fails. It could be overturned at WP:GAR if there are objections that are valid. Pyrotec (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite (if we need to spell it out):

Where the article meets the Good article criteria, explain why, and give suggestions for further improvements if appropriate. Where it does not meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article. If a problem can be resolved with minor edits, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. If you consider that a significant rewrite or reorganization is needed, the appropriate action is to fail the Article. You may choose to improve it yourself, or in partnership with others; and resubmit the article to WP:GAN as a nominator. Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that's better. I only worry that someone will say it violates WP:OWN to tell reviewers they are barred from major editing until they close the review. My hope was to imply that you're burdening other editors with a mess for them to clean up if you do a rewrite before closing your review, and that would be strong enough incentive to avoid the practice of substantial rewrites. But if nobody else feels it violates WP:OWN, then your version is preferred. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If a reviewer started a review, closed it, did a significant rewrite or reorganization and resubmited the article to GAN, that is a new nomination. The reasons for non-compliance need to be given in the review - its not valid to say "I fancy rewritting this, so I'm failing it", or similar. The original nominator would have grounds in that case for going to WP:GAR. The review of first nomination remains on the record, as part of the {{article history}}. A reviewer can choose to look at it, or not. I've certainly done reviews at second and third submissions to WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I do agree it's better, or even necessarily that a "significant rewrite or reorganization" is grounds for failing the article out of hand, if it can be accomplished reasonably while the article's on hold for one week. ("Significant" is a very amorphous concept in this context.) Quick fails will burgeon if this wording is used. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if the reviewer considers that a "significant rewrite or reorganization" is needed and he decides that he is doing to do it during the review, that is a conflict of interest and the review should closed. If someone else does the work, there is no conflict of interest and no need to fail it/ quick fail it. Secondly, so what? The reviewer brings the article up to standard (in his opinion) and resubmits it; giving a better quality nomination for someone else to review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's so black-and-white. I'll often help with the prose and structure of an article, but one thing I'll only rarely do is add sourcing, which is the bright line for me. But unless there's a real problem then what is this proposal the solution to? Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It may not be what you mean to say, but it's what the new wording actually says: if the article needs significant fixes, fail it. Period. Nothing about letting the nominator try to fix it. Just fail it, and then you may choose to fix it yourself and resubmit it. If you don't, well, the nominator's stuck, because he or she hasn't been given a chance to make the appropriate fixes, a major change to current practice. Many do fix significant problems in the course of a GA review, and your wording as it is now cuts them off at the knees. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The previous sentence says "Where it does not meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article." The new text shouldn't contradict that; rather it applies when others cannot improve it for whatever reason and the reviewer thinks they're the only one who can do the job. (An interesting thing for an editor to believe about himself.)

WP:MINOR is quite detailed and widely understood. Reviewers can avoid getting into questionable gray areas by trying hard to confine themselves to suggestions on the review page and letting the nominator and others carry them out. This serves the important goal of coaching nominators on how to write better articles. If the reviewer does all the work themselves, it undermines the learning process. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care what the new wording says, I'll continue to bumble along in my own way. If anyone has concerns about any of my GA Reviews there's always GAR. Your extrapolation into "the reviewer thinks they're the only one who can do the job" is rather revealing. I rather thought that the point being made was that the reviewer might be the only one willing and able to do the job, not at all the same thing. Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to be uncharitable. It's not that revealing and shouldn't be interpreted in such a negative light. I doubt any reviewers really believe they're the only ones who can fix articles. I'm saying they ought not to act like they think that. The most common reason is probably not arrogance, but laziness or impatience. So I'm pointing out that the process might be slow, but it serves an important teaching purpose and therefore should be allowed to run. You must care a little what the wording says, if its worth your time do discuss it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to picture MF as "bumbling along", more like Gandalf with one of these Wizard's staffs. Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

BlueMoonset was right, I did not say what I intend to say. It's quite difficult to put it in words. This is possibly what I mean:

Where the article meets the Good article criteria, explain why, and give suggestions for further improvements if appropriate. Where it does not immediately meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article. Consider If a problem can be resolved in a short period. If so, place the review "On Hold" and allow time for the nominator or others to fix the problem(s) and then re-review. For minor edits, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. If a significant rewrite or reorganization is needed, an "On Hold" may not be the appropriate action. After the review is complete and closed, you may choose to improve the article yourself. An article that has been awarded GA and has undergone a significant rewrite or reorganization may need to be resubmitted to WP:GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with the "Where the article meets the Good article criteria, explain why", as I've said before. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Glad we got that old business out of the way. It seems like there's agreement that reviewers shouldn't do too much themselves. The only disagreement is over the wording of what to do if they revise too much. So how about changing it to say reviewers should try limit themselves to mostly minor edits, and put off for further discussion how to fix messed up reviews? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This whole section is getting somewhat confused. I'd like to step back and check where all the text is coming from. There is Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles and there is Wikipedia:Good article nominations. This appears to have all come from Wikipedia:Good article nominations, so I'll consider that first. Having working your way down Steps 1 to 4 of "How to review an article" of Wikipedia:Good article nominations the nomination has already been passed or failed, and the nominator informed. So this particular paragraph, i.e.

Where the article meets the Good article criteria, you might like to consider making suggestions for further improvements if appropriate. Where it does not meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article. If a problem is easy to resolve, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself.

is explanation / clarification.

It could be dumped and the existing Review carefully—see Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles for more advice. You may also wish to consult a mentor be left in place. That might or might not suit "MF".

I could also try this editorial excursion: delete "Where the article meets the Good article criteria, explain why" and substitute: "Firstly, assess the nomination against Good article criteria and make a judgement as to whether it is complaint. If it does, justify those conclusions".

The explanation then becomes:

Firstly, assess the nomination against Good article criteria and make a judgement as to whether it is complaint. If it does, justify those conclusions"and give suggestions for further improvements if appropriate. Where it does not immediately meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article. Consider If a problem can be resolved in a short period. If so, place the review "On Hold" and allow time for the nominator or others to fix the problem(s) and then re-review. For minor edits, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. If a significant rewrite or reorganization is needed, an "On Hold" may not be the appropriate action. After the review is complete and closed, you may choose to improve the article yourself. An article that has been awarded GA and has undergone a significant rewrite or reorganization may need to be resubmitted to WP:GAN.

Is that any better ? Pyrotec (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever is decided it should be kept simple. In my opinion the biggest asset we have is that reviewers are given quite a bit of leeway when it comes to reviewing. Unless I am mistaken this discussion arises from a review where the reviewer conducted more edits than the nominator was happy with. If both were happy this would not be an issue. I don't think we need more rules to prevent this from happening, but perhaps a best practise could be used when dealing with this problem. For my mind, if the nominator does not agree with the reviewers edits the article should be reverted to the nominators version, failed and then, if the reviewer wants to keep their reversion, moved to other dispute resolution processes. What we don't want to do is discourage reviewers from making fixes to articles or add rules for a relatively rare occurance. Unless of couse this is a common problem, I only know of this one instance.

As to the above I would personally be OK with removing the Where the article meets the Good article criteria, you might like... section. Don't like the "Firstly, assess the nomination against Good article criteria and make a judgement as to whether it is complaint. If it does, justify those conclusions". I also don't see the need for the last sentence in the second block quote (the GA is already closed so it has to go through the GAN process again anyway). BTW I have left comments on articles and then when I have received no responses have made the fixes myself and passed the article. Whether those fixes were minor or not may be open to debate, but I don't think it is something we should discourage. AIRcorn (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've done exactly the same thing, rather than have to fail an article for something that could easily have been fixed had the nominator not gone AWOL. And I don't want to see any of the "explain why it meets the criteria" nonsense in any guise whatsoever. As you say, the proper thing to do if the reviewer and nominator can't agree about some change to the article is for the reviewer to close the review as a fail, after having reverted his disputed edits. Normal dispute resolution can then take over. Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Aircorn's objection to adding more rules, how about just this change to the second bullet point:

• you cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review;

That simplifies the current rules, and takes a small step toward saying reviewers shouldn't go overboard with rewrites, without adding specific requirements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I would object to the removal of "prior to the review", because that is the essence of the issue here, or it should be. GAs review are much more productive when they're collaborative ventures rather than the reviewer issuing a lofty judgement from Mount Olympus. Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Coaching and advice are not lofty judgements. That's the very essence of collaborative editing between editors of differing experience. Is there any evidence that reviewer's suggestions are regularly falling on deaf ears, and that nominators are abandoning their nominations in droves? And if that is what they often do, then what is so wrong with failing the nomination in due time? And then the reviewer may take up the article if they so choose. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the essence of collaborative editing is both parties editing, not one sitting in judgement of the other. Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Two editors working on any random article is ordinary collaboration. When one of the two is in the role of exercising the authority to pass or fail the GA nomination, you can't soft-peddle the reality that the reviewer is sitting in judgement. If either editor were interpret that as sitting in judgement of the other editor, rather than of the article's qualification for GA, then I'd say GA is not the best venue for them. It could only end in tears if either of them thinks a person, not an article, is being reviewed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I think we can limit our edits only to minor ones. I support the change "If a problem is easy to resolve, can be resolved with minor edits, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself." It defines better our scope when editing a GAN, because "easy to resolve" is not quite clear and could be missunderstood. I also agree with the change proposed by Pyrotec (talk · contribs) on failing the article if it needs substantial changes. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  I wonder if we would agree on what constitutes a minor edit? Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  I often fix minor typos (instead of listing them on a todo list) and I know that we both fix grammar. Sometimes I fix broken web links on a like-for-like basis (but I don't add new ones myself to unreferenced text). I sometimes suggest ways of clarifying prose, but I make it clear that it is only one of many possible approaches, and any alternative approach that satisfies WP:WIGA clause 1(a) is/are equally acceptable (Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Mistakes to avoid in reviews is quite helpful in where to "draw the line"). Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The definition of a minor edit has already been agreed upon, ages ago. A minor edit is defined in WP:MINOR. Why shouldn't WP:GAN use the same standards as the wider Wikipedia community? Having a whole separate set of standards would only add unnecessary complexity, and make it that much harder to recruit new reviewers. I'm not saying the reviewer should never do even one or two non-minor edits; there should be flexibility and room for judgement. Not a bright line that draws automatic consequences. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply because GAN is focused on article improvement, not bureaucracy. That's the only thing that matters, no matter how it's achieved. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I and several others feel that the integrity of GA review also matters. Self-review, and self-promotion to GA status, is a conflict of interest. An editor whose only goal was to improve articles could lurk in the GA queue and, rather than doing reviews, could jump in and assist the nominators in correcting any problems the reviewer notes. They'd be free to edit in any way without a conflict of interest, and could accomplish their goal of getting articles to pass, without creating the awkward appearance of impropriety in giving a pass to their own writing. Plus, unburdened from the role of reviewer, they could spend all their time on article improvement.

I find it very hard believe that they only way to unclog the GA queue is for the reviewers to shoulder most of the editing. That seems like a very odd, and improbable situation. Are typical nominators really that incompetent? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather insulted that you don't seem to believe that I share the view that the integrity of GAN is important, so I'll leave you to your navel gazing and be about my business elsewhere, where my efforts might be better appreciated. Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

For me, a "minor edit" is an edit that only corrects typo, grammatical errors, syntax discrepancies and redundancies, semantic issues and minor prose improvements. The prose improvements should not be longer than 3 to 5 words. What i consider is not a "minor edit" is to move sections, expand information from sources, rewrite entire paragraphs, format references, dealing with major prose changes, re-structuring sentences inside a single paragraph or moving sentences from one paragraph to another, adding visible templates, etc. As a final comment, Minor edits, as stated by Dennis Batland, have been stablished on Wikipedia a long time ago, and i agree we should stick to them. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 04:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course, we (the reviewers) exist because it is necessary more than just the guidelines to review an article. We need integrity and knowlegde; we need a criteria of our own and a proper way to work out the process so we, with the willing help of the contributors, can achieve our purposes. If we were tied only to the guidelines, then a bot could easily do our job. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 04:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Hahch21 states above (both contributions), but I have concerns about one point. It is really "annoying" and difficult to read and review a section or subsection that consists of mostly one-sentence and two-sentence paragraphs with the odd three-sentence paragraph thrown in. (Bullet-point sentences without the bullets). If it makes grammatical sense and improves readability, I might merge a one-sentence paragraph into the one above, or the one below, during a GAN review. I don't regard that as a major edit. Looking at its lead, WP:MINOR appears to be written so as to justify whether a tick can or cannot be put in the minor edit summary box in the article's edit history. If it precludes such edits than it has no part to play in GAN reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:MINOR says "rearrangement of text without modification of content should be flagged as minor". Plus, a handful of too-short paragraphs isn't a GA-failing issue anyway; only if it's excessive. Also, why can't the reviewer ask the nominator to fix it? And even if merging a large number of one-sentence paragraphs was non-minor, and the nominator couldn't do it themselves, nobody is advocating an absolute, rigid ban on reviewers ever doing non-minor edits. The reviewer should be allowed to use their best judgement any time they're in a gray area. The critical question is whether putting two or more sentences together into one paragraph would change the meaning; in a few cases it could. Most of the time, the meaning is unaffected so it's minor. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this about GAN reviewers in general, or are all these points about one particular reviewer who has not been named and one review that has not been named? Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be ad hominem wouldn't it? I don't think other editors watching this page would want to spend their time on questions other than whether the proposal is an improvement or not. Probably user talk pages are the appropriate forum for getting into motives. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't see how that is ad hominen. See Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 16#Trying to request second reviewer for what I believe is the catalyst for this discussion. In hindsight I think a revert to the nominators version and a fail from the reviewer would have been the simplest solution. AIRcorn (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not taking the bait. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that we want to depend on or name MINOR, which really is all about the tick box. One or two non-minor changes won't make the reviewer so involved in the article that the review will be compromised. Even adding a source doesn't necessarily create that level of conflict. It's the cumulative effect, not the individual edits. Instead of linking to MINOR, we should instead use wording like "small changes" or "trivial changes".

As for "why can't the reviewer ask the nominator to fix it?", it's silly and inefficient to spend two minutes explaining the location and reason for a small change on the GA subpage when I could fix it myself in ten seconds and be confident that a review of the diffs will make everything clear to the editors at the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I concede that if using the WP:MINOR definition leads to disagreements, then it's unhelpful. My assumption had been that it would keep it simple and head off arguments, but we've already seen two or three cases where editors have differing ideas about what it means. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where this discussion is going. Especially in the light of: "I and several others feel that the integrity of GA review also matters. Self-review, and self-promotion to GA status, is a conflict of interest. An editor whose only goal was to improve articles could lurk in the GA queue and, rather than doing reviews, could jump in and assist the nominators in correcting any problems the reviewer notes. They'd be free to edit in any way without a conflict of interest, and could accomplish their goal of getting articles to pass, without creating the awkward appearance of impropriety in giving a pass to their own writing. Plus, unburdened from the role of reviewer, they could spend all their time on article improvement. I find it very hard believe that they only way to unclog the GA queue is for the reviewers to shoulder most of the editing. That seems like a very odd, and improbable situation. Are typical nominators really that incompetent?"

• Anyone, registered or not, can nominate an article at WP:GAN and any registered user can review an article at WP:GAN subject to certain restrictions. One of these is that an editor cannot produce a article, review it at WP:GAN and pass it - it does happen, discussions about named editors who have done that can be found in the archives of this page. (Also in reply to an earlier point: There certainly are nominators submitting what are stub-class and start-class articles; there are editors who have never worked on "that" article who submit it to WP:GAN (perfectly "legal"); there nominators who don't do any corrective actions (perfectly legal), another editor might do it or the nomination fails because no one does it; there are good editors submitting "strong" nominations; there are good editors who submit WP:GANs that get passed (correctly) with no corrective actions; there are good editors producing GA's who also review at WP:GAN; there are incompetent reviewers (see Speedy pass above), there are good reviewers, "quick" reviewers, etc, etc. Just what would be expected.
• Why the disparaging remark: "An editor whose only goal was to improve articles could lurk in the GA queue and, rather than doing reviews, could jump in and assist the nominators in correcting any problems the reviewer notes. They'd be free to edit in any way without a conflict of interest, and could accomplish their goal of getting articles to pass, without creating the awkward appearance of impropriety in giving a pass to their own writing"? There is a direct link to each review page on Wikipedia:Good article nominations. In addition, I list on my talkpage the reviews I'm doing/have done: Scots Law is On Hold and Variable-frequency drive has corrective actions being carried by an editor who did not nominate that article. European sovereign-debt crisis has barely started. You don't need permission from me to help fix them neither do you need to "lurk" in the GA queue.
• You are not the only one who considers "that the integrity of GA review also matters". Many of those contributing to this discussion have spent considerable effort to that effect. Articles that have been passed that are not worthy of a pass can be undone: similarly articles that were failed that should not have can been undone. Its called WP:GAR, you can do it, I can do it, any registered editor can do it.

Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Lurker is just Internet slang; it describes the 90% of users who don't comment on what they read. It's not disparaging. I refuse to fill this page up with defenses against ad hominem fallacies. Several others expressed some degree of liking for the proposal. Does it makes sense to question their motives too? Of course not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You claim that there is a conflict of interest arising from (and it is not clear what is being claimed) the actions of one or more reviewers or perhaps the conduct the occurred in some specific reviews. You also claim that others, unnamed, share the same or perhaps comparable views and you offer a possible solution a minor redrafting of the text on the Wikipedia:Good article nominations page. I would like to see some examples of these reviews, and I see the advantages of listing them on this page. Interested parties could then decide whether there is a threat to the integrity of GA review system and consider whether your proposed solution would address these claimed abuses. I happen to agree with WhatamIdoing. Both Aircon and myself have stated (in different ways), there is a solution to your preceived problem, refer the offending article(s) to WP:GAR for a community decision, or do a personal WP:GAR review. ad hominem fallacies has nothing to do with it. I'm beginning to suspect that it is a perceived "ownership problem" - the nominator owns the article (not true) the reviewer can't work on it without the nominator's permission (not true), other editors need the reviewers/nominators permission to fix non compliances (not true either). Pyrotec (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This was mentioned above briefly, but might be lost in the other discussions. On occasion, for various reasons, the nominator disappears after nomination. If a review has been conducted and no response is forthcoming would there be any objection to the reviewer making the needed edits to pass the article. For example, a reviewer thinks an article is not focused enough and suggests removing an off-topic section. Say that is the only reason to fail the article. If no one responds after a month I think the reviewer should be able to remove the section to get the article up to standard if they so wish. In the end this is good for the project and I don't think the wording should discourage this. It is however a different story if the nominator is present and actively involved in the article, especially if they disagree with the change. What we need in this case is a way to resolve the situation when a reviewer is making changes to an article that the nominator disagrees with. Maybe we would be better served to come up with something to that end? AIRcorn (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In reverse order: Firstly, the nominatorfont color=blue>reviewer can ask for a second opinion (that was suggested as a non-optional requirement, but it already exists as an option). Secondly, is the change(s) necessary to achieve GA-status, if it is does the nominator have (any) grounds for objecting; if its only a personal preference of the reviewer then there could-be/is a conflict of interest on the reviewer. On making a change: possibly not, I've done it at GA Sweeps in that very situation. However, keeping the review On Hold for a month with no action taking place is possibly a bit long, its quite valid to close the review and not award GA. The old reviewer could close the review, fix it and renominate. Both choices currently exist, but I suspect, the first could be ruled out. The conflict (that might be the wrong word) above appears to in respect of addressing the "balance of control" between the reviewer and the nominator either formally or informally.Pyrotec (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

We're being sloppy with our language again: Half the references to "the nominator" in the above comments actually mean "the regular editors at the article".

Also, there's a third solution: In addition to the reviewer fixing the article or failing the article, the reviewer can seek help. It is not unusual for a reviewer to post here about an apparently abandoned article that only needs a few changes, and for another GA regular to volunteer to make any necessary fixes. IMO all three of those are valid responses to the situation, and reviewers should be free to pick whichever approach seems best, according to his or her own best judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment. I'm not sure if "we" means me/I. I sometimes don't write what I mean to say. I think I've only got it wrong once this time, so I've changed my sloppy edit. In many cases deleting "nominator" and replacing it with "the regular editors at the article" would make little or no difference; but most of the justification for the cases appears to come from reviewer-nominator clashes, so that is what I've mostly stuck with. There is no obligation on the nominator to do any corrective actions: I've certainly reviewed drive-by nominations and nominators where most if not all of the corrective actions has been done by an interested editor, a "regular editors of the article". The changes proposed are solely targetted at addressing the apparent concerns of one (or more?) active nominators. If these changes are considered necessary (and I don't think they) they should also cover for the "drive-by" nomination were the corrective actions are done by an editor(s) not named as "nominator(s)" and/or "regular editors at the article". Pyrotec (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Pyrotec, be careful who you characterize as "quick" reviewers. Some reviewers like me don't leave an indication before we review an article. We could spend days reading, researching, confirming references without leaving a trace anywhere. The timestamp may show that we do "snap" passes. But in reality, we take a lot of diligence in the review process. Therefore, you cannot judge solely from the timestamp alone. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd fall into this category; I'll usually have an edit tab open as I gradually put a review together over quite some time. The review will be created with one edit but that's not necessarily a short matter of time. GRAPPLE X 20:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I did not intend to use "quick" in that sense. A check of the archive of this talk page will find references of (say) six GA reviews in one hour by one reviewer, I've also done (I can't remember the exact figure) about 50 reviews in one month during GAN backlog campaigns and other reviewers have done (say) double that. I don't believe that high-throughput reviews are thorough reviews. Pyrotec (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I will make one further comment to OhanaUnited, your comment Some reviewers like me don't leave an indication before we review an article. We could spend days reading, researching, confirming references without leaving a trace anywhere. The timestamp may show that we do "snap" passes. could be read such that you do much of the review off-line before signing up to do the review. The obvious question is why? Why not sign up to do the review and then do your research; then your timestamp would accurately reflect your research. Days of apparent inactively is neither here or there. Pyrotec (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of seeking help. I mean, couldn't we develop a tool so we can post somewhere which GANs are abandoned and finding someone willing to help? (just an idea). About the "quick" reviewers: I think that quality doesn't mean quantity. If you spend 14 days reviewing an article, that doesn't mean your review is way better than another that only took 3 days. The quality depends on the understanding the reviewer has of the GA process, the experience and/or expertise he/she have achieved from past reviews, and many other factors such as article length, the quality of the article pre-nomination and so on. So, i'm confident that the idea of "quick" as bad review should be treated on a case-by-case basis, just as happened recently with an user. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 00:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not intending to use "quick" in the that sense (see my reply above above) it was the "six in an hour" type review and that did lead to a GAN "topic ban" on the editor concerned. The discussions can be found in the archives to this talkpage. I was responding to a specific question about nominators so my reply gave more information about nominators than it did about reviewers (there are good reviewers, bad reviewers and every step in between: I'm not trying to blanket-defend reviewers). The question was: "I find it very hard believe that they only way to unclog the GA queue is for the reviewers to shoulder most of the editing. That seems like a very odd, and improbable situation. Are typical nominators really that incompetent?" However, don't remember stating that a quick review was a bad review; and the proposals on this thread is more about giving "special ownership rights" to a GAN-nominator, i.e. if the reviewer does more than minor edits (side discussion on what is "minor") during the review the nominator has to request a second opinion. Well, the lead reviewer does not have to take the second opionion into account, but obviously could do so, so in such a case (of the second opinion being ignored) that second opinion is recorded on the review page but that is all. Pyrotec (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

if the reviewer does more than minor edits (side discussion on what is "minor") during the review the nominator... do you actually mean reviewer instead of nominator? AIRcorn (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will assume GOOD FAITH. I mean "reviewer" both times. The first proposed change to How to review an article is:

Where the article meets the Good article criteria, explain why, and give suggestions for further improvements if appropriate. Where it does not meet the Good article criteria, explain which criteria are not met, and detail the problems to help other editors improve the article. If a problem is easy to resolve, can be resolved with minor edits, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. If you do a significant rewrite or reorganization yourself, it is better not to pass the article, and instead request a second opinion (below).

I am not the original proposer. I did some drafting to allow comment, but I am strongly against the changes under discussion. I should have correctly paraphrased them in my summary as: "if the reviewer does more than minor edits (side discussion on what is "minor") during the review the nominator reviewer has to request a second opinion. Well, the lead reviewer does not have to take the second opinion into account, but obviously could do so, so in such a case (of the second opinion being ignored) that second opinion is recorded on the review page but that is all.". It makes no sense when all references to "reviewer" are changed to "nominator".

This whole section, beginning with the suggested proposals, appears to be about making the reviewer accountable to the nominator, not the other way around and certainly not to "regular editors at the article" (WhatamIdoing's words). In addition, the title of the section: "How to review an article change to discourage reviewers from going beyond minor edits?", should have made that clear. I am against the proposed changes, I am not in favour of them. Pyrotec (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought we'd gotten past the original wording long ago, due to various objections. What's wrong with something more mild, perhaps, "If a problem is easy to resolve, you are encouraged (but not required) to be bold and fix it yourself. Reviewers should generally try to avoid doing major revisions themselves." -Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be adding to this page, but have no objection to adding it to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Instructions at WP:GAN should deal with the required processes as much as possible and ambiguous ones should be avoided unless a systemic problem is identified. AIRcorn (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Aircorn. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

On an earlier, repeated point: I find it very hard believe that they only way to unclog the GA queue is for the reviewers to shoulder most of the editing.

That certainly is not the only way. Another, often underused, way of unclogging the GA queue is for reviewers to fail articles that do not meet the criteria. It isn't fun, but it is a viable, appropriate option when major changes need to be made. (Can you believe that Wikipedia has nothing on the metaphorical use of the word spine (as in "grow a spine")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It might be frustrating, but it could be used on specific situations. I mean, avoid letting the "fail to unclog the queue" become our slogan... --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Great Otis Redding Sings Soul Ballads

I need a hand on this. I've been reviewing the article The Great Otis Redding Sings Soul Ballads but some improvements were needed. I put the article on hold for 7 days, which finalized yesterday May 24. So, reviewing it again, i don't think it meets the GA criteria, but i have some kind of doubts about how to explain why it fails. So, if someone could take a look at the article an comment, i'd be thankful. I'm not sure about asking for a second opinion, so i'd like to receive some feedback first. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need to review it against WP:WIAGA and decide whether it is compliant or not. Its not clear whether you have reviewed it against WIAGA: it has clearly been reviewed against your model of what it should be. Some of it is personal preference on your part: specifically "possibly features Isaac Hayes as a debut pianist". it should say:"Isaac Hayes made his debut as a pianist with Otis Redding, possibly on songs "Come to Me" or "Security"."--Hahc21 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC); ""with four of the songs from the album chosen to be released as singles." - that can be explained on the singles section, which needs to be created." and "References must be put inside the box, not below. Even they can be put besides Chart or peak position words".

Also. The issue is that writing the chart positions (for both album and singles) inside the "Recording" section is not correct. Chart performance should be separate from recording history. In recording section, only information regarding how the songs and the album was conceived should be written. Chart performance and critical response should be under the section "Reception".

Review it against WP:WIAGA and decide whether it is compliant or not in each respect, also read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles#Mistakes to avoid in reviews. Pyrotec (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, they're not personal preferences.. They're just comments i make to see feedback from the nominator/cotributors. I'm not imposing things to be changed as i want. If the nominator have any complaint against my comments, as actually happened on this article, i won't force them to do it to pass the article. Maybe the way i use the word would can make a reader believe I'm imposing my point of view but i'm not. I know it was my mistake to say "The Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide recommends a "singles" sub-section explaining an overview of the singles released from the album. Also, as the singles weren't as successful and covered enough to carry out an article of their own, they must be included on their parent album." As the GA doesn't have to comply with any other guideline but the shown on the criteria. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The article needs to be reviewed against WP:WIAGA and the decision to pass or fail based that those requirements. Those items I've listed above do look like personal preferences:

• Firstly, the problem words are must and should look like instructions. My suggestion would have been "possibly features Isaac Hayes as a debut pianist" is unclear. It could be written clearer as "Isaac Hayes made his debut as a pianist with Otis Redding, possibly on songs "Come to Me" or "Security".". However, the nominator should be able to use his own words, provided that he makes your recommended changes.
• Secondly, the use of "The Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide is not a requirement of GA, so the article can't be failed for not using it.
• You do have a section "What's missing?" that includes: Release history; Singles section. (under Release and promotion); Promotion, if possible. (under Release and promotion); Certifications, if possible. (under Chart performance); A music sample, or an image, if possible; Commercial performance. (under Reception).
• You can't fail the article for not having an image.
• The article could (its your decision as reviewer) fail against WIAGA clause 3(a): if you consider that lack of those sections means that the article does not have an adequately broad coverage. However, does the information exist and is it verifiable? If it does exist and is verifiable then you have could have good grounds for failing the article. If it does not exist (or exists but is not verifiable) the decision is harder.

Pyrotec (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

X on Twitter

Well. I've had some problems in the past with TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) and seems he is causing a lot of trouble through all Wikipedia with the "X on Twitter" articles. Now, we have Justin Bieber on Twitter and Lady Gaga on Twitter nominated for Good Articles. I think, as a discussion is being held on WP:ANI about the need of existence of those "X on Twitter" articles on Wikipedia, to prevent such articles from being nominated until a conclusion is reached. Comments are very welcomed, please. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have very little to do with Justin Bieber on Twitter and Lady Gaga on Twitter, but I am very flattered that you think I impact all of wikipedia.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe i was exagerating. I apologize. I just watched all the discussions started in your name and i was amazed. I know you have nothing to do with those 2 articles but now you're the center of attention. Man, you're a star! --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I also wanted all reviewers to take action in this "X on Twitter" thing that surely will affect all of us, sooner or later. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This is all Much Ado about nothing IMO. Foo on Twitter should exist if it can be sourced for the individual account. Clearly these two GACs have sufficient content. There are probably a few dozen that should have article. Kanye's Twitter account should have a page. Oddly Twitter is being dominated by singers, so most Twitter account pages will be singers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that, sometimes, good sources are not enough. I think we must evaluate what might and might not be on an ecyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is. We can have good references for many things that doesn't deserve an article, and many articles without good sources that are encyclopedic. I'm prettu sure this "X on Twitter" event will make Wikipedians stand and make choices that will be good for the future of this project. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT trumps WP:GNG now? Both articles clearly meet independent notability. The independent notability of the article Justin Bieber on Twitter was pretty much determined during a rather contentious WP:DYK nomination and a merge proposal. The criteria for good article are "reasonably well written", "Factually accurate and verifiable", "Broad in its coverage", "Neutral", stable, "Illustrated, if possible, by images". While the article probably needs fixing, I don't see it as any more than other articles at WP:GAN. The article broadly covers Bieber on Twitter in terms of his usage, celebrity interaction with the account, fan interaction with the account, impact on twitter, how Bieber fans behave on Twitter, impact on marketing. It has had a number of people go through and fix grammatical errors. It is factually accurate because people have been watching it diligently to remove unsourced statements. The use of images is a bit problematic as I believe you need fair use rationale to have screenshot and additional random pictures of Bieber are not appropriate. The article is completely referenced. (It probably needs to have some reference pruning because a lot of references were put in to help with the notability argument.) It is not unreasonable to think it might be a good candidate given the established criteria. Also, Tony has nothing to do with the Bieber or Gaga on Twitter articles. It is my understanding that these two articles are completely independent of the other discussions around Foo on Twitter. --LauraHale (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article criteria item 5: the article must be stable. If there is an ongoing discussion about what to do with the article (or with its theme of articles), then nominations should be left for later. Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not a criteria and instabilty does not occur because an article is being discussed on a talk page. In the future it would be nice if a note is left for potential reviewers if a discussion is being held on a Wikipedia page other than the articles talk that might impact the review. If you come across an article here you don't think should be in the encyclopaedia the best thing to do is to nominate it at WP:AFD. AIRcorn (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"If you come across an article here you don't think should be in the encyclopaedia the best thing to do is to nominate it at WP:AFD." Is a statement without a base to sustain it. You cannot go to AFD because you don't like an article, so please revise your comment. Aside from that, if an article or a series of articles of the same kind are being heavily discussed, even on WP:ANI, about its very existence, the best thing to do is avoid reviewing those articles until the matter is resolved. That is a decision that us, as reviewers, might take, and nobody can interfere with it. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 00:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"If you come across an article you don't think meets the inclusion standards of this encyclopaedia" then. Talk about semantics. The point is that Good articles and notable articles are two different things. Put a note on the template saying that the articles are currently under discussion at ANI. The reviewer can decide if they want to review it or not. AIRcorn (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You probably should not go to AFD because you don't like an article, but you most certainly can go to AFD (or other suitable deletion processes) if you believe that the article should not be in the encyclopedia at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy pass

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think this was a speedy pass; at least I cannot find the review anywhere? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Looks to me like Oakley77 pasted the GA template on the article and fixed up the talk page, too. Not cool. Reversing... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oakley77 reviewed one article on May 10, and is on his fourth today. I looked at the one from May 10, and it gives me great concern as to the quality of the work:

• Talk:Politics of Vietnam/GA1: review started, 01:59; review concluded with a pass at 02:13.
• Edits made to the article by Oakley include correcting one typo and adding seven wikilinks, five of which were years (e.g. 1992) and were subsequently removed by later editors.

The following reviews have been started and passed by Oakley today:

• Talk:Common eland/GA1: 02:13 to 02:59; only link edits done
• Talk:Sea shanty/GA2: 03:17 to 17:21; only link edits done
• Talk:Philip Humber/GA1: 17:26 to 20:50 (no time to check details)

A fourth, Talk:Queen's University/GA1 was started at 21:00. I have to go out for the evening now, or I would pursue this further, though I don't know proper procedure in such a case. In any event, my apologies for dropping it in someone else's lap, but this is someone who doesn't seem to understand the GA review process. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Also Talk:New Jersey Turnpike/GA2. --Rschen7754 00:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, his reviews are now causing more harm than good. If nothing else we at least need to reverse the ones he's done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

While Rschen7754 has taken care of New Jersey Turnpike, the other four remain listed as GAs. Is there a way to undo these reviews and bring them back to GAN, so a competent reviewer can pick them up and give them a proper review? There should probably be a note on the article talk pages, explaining that it's nothing the nominator did, but that the review was not done according to GA standards, and needs to be redone. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding: Sorry, miscount on my part, it's five: Vietnam, Common eland, Sea shanty, Humber, and Queen's. All need to be undone and set up to be redone. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

As much as I disagree with these assumptions, I must respect them. I vow that from now on, my GA reviews will be lengthy and detailed. I apologize for any harm my edits have created. I also thank the editors who alerted me to this issue. Please, forgive me. Oakley77 (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

When I review articles, I never pass them right away; I hold them. Generally every article has a few flaws of some sort. Not every article that is at GAN should be passed. Please be sure to read the article thoroughly next time, and evaluate it based on the criteria and associated guidelines. --Rschen7754 04:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Oakley77, the very fact that you disagree with the statements made here—and think they're assumptions—shows that you do not understand the GA review process or what the criteria are and actually mean. A GA (good article) and the green plus sign that goes with it means something particular on Wikipedia, and the standards are strict and definitive. The reviews you conducted just cement the point that your opinions do not match the concrete reality of what a Wikipedia good article is supposed to be, and do not understand even something as basic as proper wikilinking.

Instead of going ahead to review more articles, I strongly recommend that you stop and learn what makes a good article on Wikipedia, versus what you think is a good article when you read it. Work on an article of your own, submit it, and learn from having your own articles reviewed what constitutes a good article. Read a few articles under review and then the comments in that review to see what sorts of things need to be pointed out or corrected, from language to structure to sourcing to linking. Please. If you aren't willing to learn, your reviews will not be adequate to the task. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

@Oakley. All your reviews do not have to be lengthy and detailed and I don't see a problem in passing an article without holding if it is good enough. In fact, some of the more experienced reviewers here will leave a very short review and pass the article straight away if it is already up to standard. The problem is that your reviews all appear very generic and it does not look like you have considered the article against the criteria. This is compounded by the fact that you are a new reviewer and we have no evidence of you ever finding fault in an article. One suggestion I can think of is to write out what you do when reviewing an article, even if there are no issues (i.e. spot checked sources #1, #5, #7 and #8, pictures all sourced to flickr with correct licensing, no DAB links found etc). At least until you gain confidence in reviewing and we gain confidence in your reviews. Look at some of the other reviews here to get an idea on what is expected and don't be afraid to ask for advice, either here or if you want at my talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Aircorn: it's getting the outcome right, not jumping through bureaucratic hoops, that matters. If someone has a substantive problem with an article being passed, that's what WP:GAR is for. The criteria don't actually include anything about the length of time spent reviewing or the number of words typed on the review page—and this isn't FAC, so the existence of "a few flaws" doesn't mean that it isn't a GA (depending, naturally, on exactly what those "few flaws" are).

Having said all that, people who have worked hard on an article usually appreciate reading something more detailed than "Okay, it passed", and it does tend to reassure any lurkers that you really are being careful about the reviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think what bothers me is that what Oakley77 has effectively demonstrated is that a reviewer who doesn't know how to do a GA review—or who knows it isn't being done right but does it anyway—can "review" a bunch of articles and pass them, and nothing happens to undo the damage. Are there no precedents or procedures for rollbacks in such situations? Or does each one have to get a GAR sponsor? I suppose that's one way to encourage more GA reviewing, but it seems highly flawed to me. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I went and undid four of the five that need undoing; I'll give a re-review of Humber (the one i didn't undo) since I know the material well, and since it's at PR too I'm not as concerned about that one. If any of those I undid get angry I can provide a review for them despite me usually hitting the oldest articles first. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Late reply: You don't need "a GAR sponsor". Just follow the simple instructions for an individual GAR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oakley77 has submitted another bunch of GANs today, none of which he has ever even edited, and most of which still have outstanding tags or are otherwise clearly not ready. I quickfailed tea, but perhaps with some of the others it might be more efficient to rollback/undo the GAN? Sasata (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition, Oakley77 has continued to review GANs, albeit at a reduced rate. There wasn't a single issue with or correction made in the Talk:Cactus/GA1 review, which was passed despite Oakley77's vow above to be "lengthy and detailed" in all reviews. Talk:Halvdan Koht/GA1 is currently in process, with no issues or corrections made for sections 1a (comment: "Great here"), 1b ("As is here"), and 2c ("Surefire pass"). BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What do we do? I've checked Sarajevo, which he nominated, and still has maintenance tags (i'm thinking of quickfailing it). Also, he nominated Aluminium. On Sarajevo, he's not on the top 20 contributors for the article. The same for Aluminium. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point we're going to have to ban him from doing reviews. He's been warned, guided, and given suggestions on how to properly review, and he either isn't getting it or doesn't want to. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe i know what happens here with him. He is the one who thinks: "Well, i pick a GA nominee, i scroll the bar to the bottom of the article, and if i like it, then i promote it." Have this happened before? How do we find a solution? You say banning him. Is that possible? I had to fail Sarajevo, which he nominated. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 18:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the thing, we already explained to him that that's not how the process works. When someone doesn't make an effort to improve themselves, it lessens our options greatly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and he doesn't stop. He failed Halvdan Koht without a single comment (i see you leaved a comment on that review page) and he's now "reviewing" Georgios Samaras. Whatever we'll do, we need to do it fast. he's corrupting our work. This could even damage the image of reviewers, i'm afraid. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So do we block him if he continues? BTW, undid the Cactus review. --Rschen7754 20:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's the only option available, then so be it. I leaved a message on his talk page to see if he finally undestands that what he's doing is not correct. I watched a conversation he had with Dom497 (talk · contribs) and i was shocked with what he (Oakley) did... Look at this: "Like, I said, I used your review as a template, the comments are the same but the articles are different. And yes, I probably did rush a bit, because there are some articles that really need to become GAs. Now realizing I shouldn't rush, I will touch up the review a bit." Those are comments of someone who, apart from doesn't knowing how to review, is playing a joke on the GA process. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Full agreement. I'd be willing to block short-term as necessary under "disruption". --Rschen7754 20:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As a minor point, it doesn't matter if he's edited the pages that he nominates. The nominator has one very small job: he nominates the article. That's it. Editing the article before the nomination, interacting with the reviewer, making corrections, etc., are not technically the nom's job. Those tasks are the job of all the editors at an article, which may or may not include the nom. It happens that the nom is usually one of those editors (indeed, is usually the only active editor), but it is not actually a requirement for the nom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a speedy fail from the same user. It's frivolous, overly informal (and therefore impolite) in tone, and the "reviewer" quickfailed the article without addressing a single issue. A comment below the review indicated that the "reviewer" has a murky history of GA reviews, and then I saw the above discussion, so here we are. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

[18] - seems he has moved on to FAC. --Rschen7754 21:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion, and I have to point that this user nominated the article Argentina, which he has never edited, and regardless of the last thread (previous to the nomination) where I mentioned the huge size of the article, nearly 78 KB of readable text (the suggested max is nearly 50 KB), and the need to trim it down, which I am undergoing right now. Only after that step is done it would make sense to go on with a deeper copyedit, checking and improving the references, etc; and only by then it would be time for nominations. Given the context, I removed the nomination: the article is not ready, and we don't need to waste anyone's time to notice something that I (the second highest contributor to the article) already know and work about.

Thing is, there's a similar pattern in other articles: Talk:Didgeridoo, Talk:Hamline University, Talk:Namibia, Talk:Nunavut, Talk:Alhazen, etc. (and that just for May 29). I know that mass nominations are not rejected per se, but considering the context, we should do that as well. Cambalachero (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Left a note at his talk page telling him he faces being banned if he continues. Saying that I will have no problem if the consensus here is that he has already had his last chance and should no longer be allowed to nominate for a set time. AIRcorn (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be checking those articles he nominated. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think he should be prevented from nominating for GAN and FAC, and said so below for GAN, but we didn't ban him from doing so below, we just banned him from reviewing. In fact, the proposal explicitly said "Oakley77 may nominate articles for GA status". That's a loophole that clearly needs explicit closing, as he has demonstrated he doesn't understand nominating principles any better than he understood reviewing principles. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I've checked Talk:Didgeridoo and it almost fails all the criteria and has one or two reasons for a quickfails. I strongly think the other 4 articles are just the same. I think we should ban him for nominating articles for a while. We've enough backlog to work on, and we don't need to have to deal with this i think. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to bar Oakley77 from reviewing GA articles

In the light of the above comments and the disruption that Oakley77 is causing to the GA process, I propose the following:

1. Oakley77 is barred from reviewing articles nominated for GA status for a minimum of six months from the closure of this discussion. For the avoidance of doubt, Oakley77 may nominate articles for GA status, and may participate in reviews initiated by other editors.
2. After six months Oakley77 may apply to this talk page for the restriction to be lifted, whereupon a discussion will take place to see if Oakley77 understands and can apply the GA reviewing principles, and a decision will be reached on whether to extend, lift or modify the restriction.

• Support as proposer. Bencherlite^Talk 09:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support but do we really need this discussion? --Rschen7754 09:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support—the latest review brought to our attention here (Talk:Halvdan Koht/GA1) cements my opinion, but I had previously found slipshod reviewing in Talk:New Jersey Turnpike/GA2 of various things a few weeks. There doesn't seem to be any growth or engagement on the quality of these reviews, so this step is necessary for the integrity of the process at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 09:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support from recent experience, and also revert this week's reviews. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oakley77 has replied to my message notifying him of this discussion as follows: "Please don't do that. I ask because I am resigning as a GA reviewer. I will only nominate articles and/or clean them up. So don't bar me, because I am barring myself.Oakley77 (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)". I still think something more formal than a self-imposed bar (which Oakley77 could then revoke at any time) is required. Bencherlite^Talk 15:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support A formal barring seems necessary given the continuing reviews with little content. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support He is damaging our reputation as reviewers, the overall process and causing extra work to be done in result of his actions. He is also not clear of what the GA process means. So, as i believe is too late to resign of what he's done, a ban is needed. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 00:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support the first sentence of 1., and all of 2. Support also the reversion of all his reviews, and the termination of his current review of Talk:Georgios Samaras/GA1. Oppose the second sentence of 1., which is highly flawed, as his judgment in both reviewing and nominating is demonstrably bad: he continues to nominate articles he has done no work on—five alone the other day, most of which had to be quick failed—and he's added another with Emu. I also have no idea what "For the avoidance of doubt" means, and cannot support its inclusion in the proposal: I'd frankly be in favor of a ban from GANs as well, at least for those articles he hasn't done any appreciable work on. I am fine with him commenting on GANs under review. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ban enacted. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to bar Oakley77 from nominating GA articles

In the light of the above comments and the disruption that Oakley77 is still causing to the GA process and other editors, I propose the following:

1. Oakley77 is barred from nominating any articles for GA status, and barred from commenting on the reviews of articles that others have nominated for GA status, in both cases until at least 25 November 2012.
2. After 25 November 2012 Oakley77 may apply to this talk page for the restriction to be lifted, whereupon a discussion will take place to see if Oakley77 understands and can apply the GA criteria and reviewing principles, and a decision will be reached on whether to extend, lift or modify the restriction.

• Support as nominator. My previous proposal allowed GA nominations because at that point he wasn't being disruptive in that way. Now he is, with his drive-by nominations causing work and aggravation for others. If he cannot apply the criteria to review or nominate, then I don't see why he should be commenting on reviews since that also is likely to be disruptive. Bencherlite^Talk 06:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I think we can rely on the FAC delegates to take care of FAC; I'll let them know of this. --Rschen7754 06:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support He's causing a nuisance and refuses to talk with people/accept advice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support based on first-hand experience, followed by knowledge of his global activities, as described earlier Cambalachero (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons given above. --Lecen (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support as per above and in the light of the editor's refusal to engage. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Repeatness and missunderstanding. We've tried a lot to make Oakley77 understand how this works and he just doesn't learn. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see in any of the many recent nominations that Oakley77 does understand what makes a Good Article by Wikipedia standards. This despite being urged earlier to take the time to learn. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, please don't do this. I swear, from now on I will only nominate one article at a time, and will announce my intention on the talk page first as well. I now understand the nominating criteria, so please don't ban me from nominating. I will change, and become a great, textbook nominator. Please. Oakley77 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"Great, textbook nominator" s are usually the article writers themselves or at least strongly associated with the article writer's so they are at least informed..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support—per above. Imzadi 1979 → 00:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Has this ban been enacted? I have just reverted a new GA nom by Oakley77 [19] on the basis of multiple maintenance tags still present in the article at the time of nomination. --maclean (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• And, may I point out, Oakley77 made no announcement on the article's talk page (or even here) before nominating, despite the above pledge. I think it's past time to put this ban in place. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and enact ban. Yes, I commented above but nobody except the person to be banned has opposed. --Rschen7754 20:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

How did I get a ban on nominating articles to become GAs? I followed procedures well. If i wasn't a major contributor to the article, I contacted the editors first. I only nominated B-class articles, and didn't do anything stupid or untrustworthy. I really don't deserve this. I am committed to the GA cause, and am thrilled to see articles become GAs. Why have I been barred from participating in favorite part about Wikipedia? Also, my bad about placing a notice on the talk page beforehand. I really just forgot about that procedure and will do it from now on. I have been contacting the editors though. I am sorry for anything done wrong, and wish to not only make good on promises (swear to actually), but to try and become a model GA nominator. Also, I am done in the FAC department, I am just going to be in the GAC dept. I am committed to the GA cause, and am thrilled to see articles become GAs. Please, let me participate in my favorite part about Wikipedia again. Oakley77 (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, as I mentioned before, you nominated the article Argentina without contacting the main editors, without paying attention to ongoing work (because there is work going on in the article right now), and without noticing that the article was too large some references are not in a good shape, others are dead links, there are a pair of citation needed requests, etc. And that's just the surface, references with a good format should still be checked for their content and reliability (I have to remove one because of that, I will check later better references to use instead). That's why I removed that nomination... and when I came here, I noticed that it wasn't the first nomination of that style that you did. If you had simply asked if someone agreed with nominating, nothing of this would have happened, I would have told you about those issues. Or perhaps, if nobody replied, you could have proceed with the nomination, and nobody would have complained about it then. Cambalachero (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, with all respect, that nomination was slightly different from he rest. On my latest ones, I have contacted the editor. I apologize again for anything hassle or disruption those nominations may have caused. I also want to state that I am NOT asking to be allowed to review again, just to NOMINATE. I want to make it clear I am committed to becoming a model nominator, as the guidelines are now crystal-clear to me. Also, I think it would be an excellent idea for me to post possible nomination on this discussion, or an alternative place where possible proposals can be commented on, it would benefit everyone involved. I love the GA process, and would love if I were allowed to be a part of it again. Oakley77 (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, Oakley, part of the problem is that when you nominate articles and a reviewer takes them on, you don't make the needed corrections. For example, see Talk:The Canterbury Tales/GA1 and Talk:Loch Ness Monster/GA1. Nominating deficient articles (including those with maintenance tags, unsourced sections, etc) is a problem in and of itself - nominating these articles and then not fixing problems when they are pointed out is an even bigger problem. Until you can prove that you understand what a good article looks like (which, so far, you have not), and that you are willing to make changes recommended by reviewers, you are most likely not going to be allowed to nominate articles. Dana boomer (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. I really wasn't aware that nominators make the changes, but from now on that will be done too. The only thing I can't do are refs/citations, I just am not learned in that field. Besides that, I can pretty much correct anything the reviwer needs me two. Thanks for filling me in on that. What else do I need to do to become a beloved nominator again? Oakley77 (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say just take some time to observe the GA process and edit articles. Get comfortable with editing, learn how to do citations and references (which is a big part of what we do around here, even if your exact formats aren't perfect you still need to reference your additions to articles) and just make yourself more knowledgeable about how and why things are done around here. Imzadi 1979 → 22:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Oakley77, you have 4 open nominations listed the GAN page (The Canterbury Tales, Loch Ness Monster, Alhazen, and Hamline University). Should these be closed or will you do the work, in a timely manner, as requested by reviewers for them to meet GA criteria? maclean (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, anything requested but citations I will try to complete. Loch Ness Monster has been failed, so that can close, anything else I will do my best to do. Oakley77 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

My only active nomination is The Canterbury Tales, and I have helped out the reviewer greatly with things he has asked. As soon as the other nomination's reviews start, I will help that reviewer out too. Oakley77 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You tell me, do you believe Hamline University "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" per WP:GA?? maclean (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

From my very limited knowledge of citations, I just can't be sure. It appears to have a suitable amount of citations, but my guess is just that, an educated guess. Oakley77 (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A cursory glance tells me the article is not completely supported by sources, and of the inline citations, there are a number of raw urls. The article should be COMPLETELY sourced at the time of nomination and there should be ZERO raw URLs. Another few seconds reveals the sources are almost all from the university and are not independent of the source, or are not supported by outside sources. This is an educated guess as to what your critics means and that you cannot spot these very basic problems is a bit of a concern. --LauraHale (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec with LauraHale)Oakley, that's where a major problem comes in - citations and references (both in terms of content and formatting) are a huge part of the GA process. An "educated guess" isn't good enough, and won't get you let back to nominating articles. I would really suggest that you watch the GA process for a while - look at some of the nominations and reviews done by people who work at GAN a lot - and just try to understand the referencing aspect of it. Then take a start-class article on a topic you're interested in, find relevant, reliable sources and add them in, probably expanding the article as you go, and then ask a good GA reviewer what they think of the article - is it ready for GAN? Don't just go out, find a B-class article that you "guess" looks good enough and then nominate it. Dana boomer (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Following this discussion, I have removed Alhazen and Hamline University from the nominations queue by removing the GAN template. The Canterbury Tales is under review, I have left a note on the review page. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The only place where I will quibble with Laura's advice is that technically GAs don't need to be completely referenced. The criteria say that we only need to provide references for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons", but I agree that more is better, and ideally we should be striving for complete referencing in our work before nomination, not afterwards. Imzadi 1979 → 17:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The GA criteria also don't technically bar the use of bare URLs. It's a Very Bad Idea, but it is not actually prohibited. And we certainly do not require perfection in reference formatting. As WP:GACN says, if you can figure out which source is being cited, then that technically meets the criteria. (Myself, I'd just fix bare URLs rather than telling the nom that I won't pass the article unless he meets my personal preference for not having them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Imzadi1979, criteria 2a requires "references to all sources of information". Inline citations are dealt with separately under 2b, but a reviewer can ask, under 2a, where the information in this uncited paragraph/section is coming from. The nominator does not need to respond in the form of an inline citation, but we are allowed to know where information is coming from. maclean (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching those nuances of the GA nomination process, they were greatly appreciated. I really hope that everyone will realize I am dedicated to the GA cause, and am ready to become a nominator. This citation system, it is now alot clearer. Please gentlemen/women, allow me to be placed again as a GA nominator, with this new understanding now available to me. Oakley77 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that, know that you understood how the citations work, go on and practice that knowledge on some pages for a while before you are granted the right to nominate articles. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No. You haven't proven to us that you truly understand the process yet. Why do you want to nominate GANs so badly? Is there anything else that you can do? Keep in mind WP:NOTTHERAPY - you're not entitled to the right to nominate GANs because you want to do it so badly. --Rschen7754 19:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I would to address some things mentioned above. First off, the only edits I have made to Wikipedia SINCE I have understood the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation have been constructive, or at least I had the mindset of being constructive. It is not therapy, it is dedication. Secondly, nominating articles for the GA process is my favorite thing to do on Wikipedia, and I enjoy seeing articles become GAs. There is lots else I can do and HAVE been doing, but the GAN process is my favorite. Oakley77 (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What does the Foundation have to do with the GA/GAN process? Seriously though, this is looking like borderline obsession here. You have yet to demonstrate that you have a firm understanding of what it takes to make a good article into a Good Article. The interested community assembled here has given you a very firm answer: you are banned from nominating articles for GA status, banned from commenting on existing reviews related to current nominations and banned from making your own nominations for GA status. You have until 25 November 2012 before you can apply to have those sanctions lifted. I suggest that you use that time wisely to observe and fully learn what is expected of nominators and reviewers to the process before then. Imzadi 1979 → 23:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, I have acted calmly and amiable during this entire thing. To call me obsessed is crossing the line. I just really want to be a nominator that's all. I also my level of understanding has improved through this discussion and I feel I am able to be a nominator once again, albeit I will ONLY HAVE ONE nomination at a time, and will discuss here, on the article talk page, and with its main contributors before nominating it. Oakley77 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not call you obsessed; rather I said that your focus on this topic is starting to look like borderline obsession. There is quite a difference between the two.

The community here has spoken and rendered a decision. Two separate sanctions banning you from the GAN process have already been enacted, and your further comments have not convinced anyone to reconsider. I'm closing this discussion because it's already become clear that you will continue to spend whatever good faith you have left with the community without benefit to yourself or the community. Please, take the next six months or so away from direct participation here to work on articles as Danaboomer has suggested. During that time, please also watch the process from a distance so that when November comes around, you may be ready to ask to have these restrictions lifted by the community. Good luck. Imzadi 1979 → 00:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Has this been enacted yet? He just tried to nominate Babe Ruth for GA status, even though it's far from meeting criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

TeacherA

I see that there have previously been issues with the review style of TeacherA (talk · contribs) (See here and here for the archives). After a year away he is now back and undertaking a similar, rather unhelpful approach to the process on two articles (see Felix Leiter and Illinois election for further details of his activities. Is there not some way that this guy can be stopped from reviewing without having to have a mentor work with him, or just stopped? In the meantime, is it possible to have a more constructive review undertaken on these two articles? - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There are many ways to proceed on this case. I'll be checking his reviews and in the meantime you can get in touch with the users involved in the Oakley77 reviewing case to see what they think on the matter. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 05:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, this is worrying me. Two discussions in one month. I've read both reviews and i'm pretty concerned about this. A reviewer writing this:"Do not be discourage. Rethink everything." or this:"This will truly make it "good". You are not far from it." are really out-of-place-and-time comments. They're not balanced, they're not unbiased and not professional, if i can use that word to describe our jobs as reviewers. Also, asking vague and unnecessary changes to an article is not correct. This is even disgusting:"You can do it! I would do it for you but that is not the role of the reviewer." I now he may encourage nominatos to work on an article, but this kind of wording and way to express feelings is not the role of the reviewer, as he kindly wrote on the review. I still don't get the M.O., which seems to be very irregular. He first tells the nominator not to be discuraged, and then comments that he will "come back in approximately 3-4 weeks to review"? O.M.G. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 05:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks—I'm glad someone else sees it the same way I do! I've flagged it up to a few people and I'm hoping they take the same view as you do over this. I'll state here for the record, just so no-one gripes about it later, that I am the nominator for the Felix Leiter article, so I do have a vested interest in this matter. However, I have no connection to the Illinois's 1st congressional district election, 2000 article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had several unfortunate experiences with TeacherA's erratic and cursory style of GA reviews in the past, as the two archives links that SchroCat provides indicate, and these two new examples of TeacherA's reviews fit the pattern. I always figured that TeacherA was some kind of sock-troll operation doing an intermittent disruption operation, but I was never able to prove it. But even assuming that TeacherA's persona is genuine, he or she is clueless about the GA criteria and the GA process and shouldn't be allowed to do reviews. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are the strangest reviews I've ever seen. Looks like banning him would be beneficial as well. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the strangest comment to see in Wikipedia (or maybe not?) but very common in schools. Kids run to Mommy and demand an "A" when it is not deserved and the parent tries to blame the teacher. We also see this in society when kids are encouraged to have self esteem above everything else. Flunk math? Have self esteem, don't worry! No, kids, learn math and then feel good when you ace the test. If you don't, don't get discouraged but keep working at it. TeacherA (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What are the practical steps that could resolve this issue? It's been highlighted here, we seem to be in agreement that the reviews are being undertaken in an eccentric manner, but what now? I've not been in the situation of having to flag up inappropriate nominations before! Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We propose banning the user for reviewing articles. Also, you can propose a "destitution" of the user as the reviewer, if that exist(?) I'm just getting creative, i don't know if that could be done. Ehat i know you could do immediately is asking a second opinion until we reach a consensus on this case. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

SchroCat asks what practical steps to be done. Hahc wants to ban. Instead, Hahc should try to improve articles. I have passed nearly all of the GA that I have reviewed. I have used templates. Please act responsibly and just improve articles. Do not attack the reviewer. TeacherA (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This TeacherA appears to be familiar enough with Wikipedia process to go straight to GA upon account creation and correctly follow instructions to create the GA review page but shows no signs of having seen the GA criteria. He found a need to identify the purpose of this account [20] as one to "review and revise articles" but has never shown interest in other review procedures (Peer Review or Featured) and has never strayed away from GA. This seems like an alternate (or sock) account to me - one that is being used solely to put up bad GA reviews. Is this enough to ask for a sock investigation? or is this bad faith + fishing on my part? maclean (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as a sock investigation, that would be like a student who doesn't get an "A" then wants the teacher investigated for sexual misconduct just because he is mad at not getting an "A". In this case, you will see that this IP is currently has a schoolblock. Instead, editors should just work on the article. I award nearly all articles I review a GA eventually. That is because most editors make the article much better and do not complain. TeacherA (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You ask if this is bad faith. It is. I see the same attitude in schools. In schools, kids run to their parents, cry, and say "I want an 'A' ". It is easy to cave in and give them an "A". I could fix the articles for Wikipedia but that would be the same as doing the kid's homework so he gets an "A". If you want my opinion, the Felix Leiter article is 95% of the way to GA and the Illinois election is 80% there. The Felix Leiter article could be fixed by one person in half of an evening. An experienced writer could fix it in 30 minutes.

As far as maclean (Maclean25) false accusation of "no signs of having seen the GA criteria" and "used solely to put up bad GA reviews", look again and see that I approved some GA very, very quickly and also have used the GA template. TeacherA (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Felix Leiter is a B+ but I will agree to grade inflation and give it an "A" or, in this case, GA. TeacherA (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

TeacherA, what you've just written here confirmed our most profound fears: You don't know the GA criteria. Using the template? The template can be easily used by a child on any Wikipedia page. Also, nominators are not "kids in a school" and Wikipedia is not a school. Also, GA status is not a grade you give to anyone, is a metion of class and quality the stands above the normal articles. GA is not a teacher-student relation but a evaluation-assessment process. You have to carefully read the GA criteria to be able to review articles. As of what i've seen, you should stop doing it now until you now what this is all about. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There are several templates. I have used one for Felix Leiter and it is now a GA. I have also used another one in the past, the one with the green checkmarks. I also see quite a few GA that do not use the template but there is no complaint possibly because the users got their GA. So it seems only when they have to improve the article before getting GA do some complain. This is not good. TeacherA (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little tardy to this party, but I will say that after reading that review of my nomination (the Illinois election), I did think of coming here to ask for advice or a new reviewer. The review provided is very vague and confusing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Summary so far

There are complaints that no template was used and articles are not being passed. The record shows that I pass nearly all articles and I do use templates. Editors who fail to get quick promotion to GA should not attack the reviewer. Of the two articles mentioned, one (Felix Leiter) is now a GA and the other one is not quite there yet. TeacherA (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Look. My complain doesn't relate on your use of templates or not, but on the way you review the articles. First, no reviewer has the mandatory guideline to use any GA template. The issue is that 1) the way you express yourself is not correct for a GA reviewer 2) Your personal criteria while reviewing articles seems to be biased and 3) Your knowledge of the GA process appears as crippled when checking the reviews you've made. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. As for 1, (what is "correct"?). As for 2, my suggestions for articles, if followed, results in improvement. As for 3, there is no test for GA so there is no set criteria for knowledge. This is hard because if you want criteria, then you should write them and provide several versions of articles that pass and don't pass. Prose is also an important criteria. We (hopefully) have a common goal of article improvement and are not just trying to get medals and stars attributed to editors. TeacherA (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem with template

The Hayward, California article is a GA. All the template criteria are met. However, the history of the city since 1899 is covered in only 5 sentences, covering two ideas, one minor. The history from prehistoric times to 1899 has many paragraphs. This is certainly a major, major flaw yet the criteria for GA are met. See, this is why editorial consideration, what I also do, is important. As for the Hayward aritcle, I simply made suggestions and hope the editors fix it. TeacherA (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We're getting nowhere with this. I won't take this by myself alone. I'll wait to see what other editors think about the way you review (not your excuses) and then we'll reach a consensus about your actions, and the veredict about this situation. Regards. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You passed Hayward, California as a GA while it still has 2 {{citation needed}} templates and a section (Downtown Hayward) that fails 1b (list incorporation). maclean (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous: if someone wants to undertake a sensible review of the Felix Leiter article to help it improve and iron out any wrinkles, I'll be happy for them to do so and be happy to follow their thoughts and suggestions. In the meantime if this editor could be stopped from reviewing artticles in future until they've grown up a little I'd be grateful. - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If someone wants to think about a sock investigation, here's one clue I've had: This odd August 2008 post about Mitt Romney not eating chicken skin by User:Oprahwasontv at Talk:Mitt Romney/Archive 7#Romney is opposed to eating chicken skin: "During the campaign, he ripped off chicken skin from fried chicken and threw it aside. Huckabee said that a Southerner would never do that because that's the best part. I can't think of an encyclopedic way to include this so I'll leave it up to you. The incident is reliably sourced." Compare this to a largely identical reference and tone in January 2011 review comment by TeacherA in Talk:Mitt Romney/GA1: "Huckabee attacked Romney for failing to eat the chicken skin of a fried chicken thigh. Did you know that?! There is a CNN reference. I am not telling you that it should be in the article. This is just a factoid that I know." Oprahwasontv was blocked as a sock. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I proposed Hayward for GA, and got the message from TeacherA that it passed. I thought it seemed like minimal discussion, Talk:Hayward, California/GA1, but ive read very few GA reviews. I just wanted to see if the article was in the ballpark for GA yet. I'm not even sure if it passes A, or B, but i think it was B when i began editing it. Even I thought this was skimpy commentary, and wondered why it passed so easily. I liked some of their comments, but they were not very specific. I dont see how such a brief transition from proposed to passed helps the article, as there isnt enough time for it to attract any serious attention. its now no longer a GA article, which is fine, but for someone who put a lot of work into it, sort of a rollercoaster ride. Oh, i just checked their edit history under this username, [21], I don't need someone with so few edits reviewing articles, not helpful no matter how well intentioned.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.189 (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to bar TeacherA from reviewing GA articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. TeacherA is barred from reviewing articles nominated for GA status indefinitely from the closure of this discussion.
2. After 12 months TeacherA may apply to this talk page for the restriction to be lifted, whereupon a discussion will take place to see if TeacherA understands and can apply the GA reviewing principles, and a decision will be reached on whether to extend, lift or modify the restriction.

• Support. Reading over the above section made me realize this is necessary. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Especially that it's indefinite with the requirement that TeacherA apply to have the restriction lifted, since the user disappears for long periods at a time (over 14 months last time). The bulk of TeacherA's 111 edits over three years have been questionable GA reviews that ignore much of WP:WIAGA and WP:MOS. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It's not only that the GA procedures have been ignored by this editor, but that they show absolutely no appreciation as to why the procedures are there. tThey also show a total lack of understanding of what the process is all about. An editor who has never written an article to GA standard and has been through the process should not be in a position to review them. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the points I exposed on the discussion held in the above section. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. WP:Peer review would be more suitable to TeacherA's desire and approach to reviewing articles. But GA uses specific criteria that TeacherA shows little understanding, about what the GA criteria is and what it is not, and has shown little interest in changing. The consquence of allowing anyone with an account to review articles is that occasionally there will be incomplete reviews by new editors who have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. This proposal is suitable to TeacherA's case. maclean (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. In my judgment, as expressed above and in past posts here, TeacherA is an intentional troublemaker. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wasted Time R is a troublemaker. He is extremely aggressive and attacks others with fabricated accusations. This is not the Wikipedia way but commonly happens to teachers when students are mad that they did not get an "A". TeacherA (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Best case scenario, TeacherA is just very ignorant of how much editing experience is needed on WP to produce good articles, regardless of skill in any other text media. Im concerned that this is possibly too generous, but i have so little experience with the GA process, i will leave my comments to this.(mercurywoodrose not logged in)75.61.135.189 (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support—per the above concerns expressed. Imzadi 1979 → 03:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per above. User shows little understanding of the GA process. --Rschen7754 20:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - below is a much better idea! TeacherA (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Let's just end this now and be done with it. --LauraHale (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Better idea: work together not be confrontational and try to hurt others

Bottom line: TeacherA will co-review articles for GA and discuss it with another reviewer. That reviewer must consider TeacherA's suggestions in good faith but will have final authority on promotion. TeacherA's review work will make the co-reviewer's job quicker since he only needs to review the review. Faster work will help Wikipedia cut the backlog.

• Whereas, some people are unhappy with Teacher A.
• Whereas, nobody has suggested working with Teacher A (except mclean) but wants to punish the Teacher A.
• Whereas, there is a huge backlog of hundreds of GA nominations.
• Whereas, Teacher A regularly promotes articles so it is not a question of obstructing articles from promotion.
• Whereas, some of those opposing Teacher A have also have articles which they did not like Teacher A's comments.
• Whereas, users do not have the authority to bar others.
• Whereas, Teacher A wants to help Wikipedia.
• Whereas, Teacher A can identify weaknesses and help articles
• Whereas, others have removed GA (see Hayward, CA) and have not gone through the correct process of opposing it.
• Whereas, it is unfair to remove GA from articles from which Teacher A promoted but not from others Teacher A promoted.

Therefore, we the undersigned support...

• Teacher A will work with others for the next 12 months to review GA and only co-review articles for GA. The co-reviewer can look over the review and approve it.
• Articles that Teacher A have reviewed will remain as GA except Hayward, California
• For Hayward, California, Teacher A will wait for an uninvolved user (not voting here or on this issue) to co-review it.
• When Teacher A co-reviews articles, the co-reviewer must act politely and consider all suggestions in good faith but the final decision for GA will rest with the co-reviewer. Nobody can be a co-reviewer if they have commented on this issue.
• This should be a non-confrontational solution, unlike the previous one, which includes a bar and is highly confrontational.
• Support for this proposal only constitutes support for the proposed solution (after the word "Therefore"), which is essentially a co-reviewer proposal.
• Teacher A may complete a GA review if a co-reviewer does not completion review of an article within 3 months of when the GA review is started but Teacher A will proactively seek co-reviewers if the 3 month period is coming to a close.

• SUPPORT Let's get on with the program! TeacherA (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—a long Roberts Rules of Order-style resolution doesn't address some core concerns, and it's flawed in other respects. One of my problems with this proposal is the 3-month timeframe to complete a review? GAN is a lightweight process, and the standard hold period is seven days, so it's very unlikely that that clause would be put to use. This isn't a matter of promoting articles to clear a backlog (not promoting them after a fair review also clears items off a backlog, for instance). It's not appropriate to attempt to grandfather in previous reviews as an end run around proposed community sanctions. And yes, the community retains the authority to enact sanctions or restrictions on other editors, so your resolution is fatally flawed in that respect. Imzadi 1979 → 02:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is the case, then when the bar starts, all the GA that I passed will be automatic delisted. That is not very nice of you to do this to the many hard working GA editors but you can take it up with them. TeacherA (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: There are a lot of bullet points, and unless some one is willing to be a mentor and actively do it, this is DOA. --LauraHale (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict)You can do that with a mentor outside the GA process. I mean, if you want a co-reviewer watching what you do, you can ask one of the mentors to help you out on the matter, but outside the GA-related processes. Everything else i would've said is already said by Imzadi1979. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If this is the case, then there will be no bar and I will just work with others outside the GA process. I think the new proposal below is better. TeacherA (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: The first section should have been closed days ago and the ban enacted. The Whereas list just reinforces this point, and the proposed solutions nail it down. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: As per all the above. You patently don't know what you're doing and I suggest you try writing a few articles up to GA standard yourself and learning what the process is from the inside. Do that for a year then ask to come back—and then do it with a mentor. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not a requirement for reviewers to have written GA. Besides, I am a teacher and have graded many more papers than you. However, if you want to make that a new requirement then introduce it. TeacherA (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that (as we all think) going through the GA process as a nominator from an article you've created or made substantial contributions is a very good idea before reviewing articles. I have to admit that i reviewed articles before nominating some, but i did a lot of research of the GA process before. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Better idea: Very simple

Putting a bar on someone is very confrontational. Nobody can say it is not. In Wikipedia, when there is disagreement, sometimes a compromise solution is used.

• TeacherA understands that some people are unhappy. Therefore, for the next 12 months, TeacherA will ALWAYS consult with other users before a decision to promote or not is made and the other user's opinion will be the deciding opinion. Because there is a huge backlog, TeacherA will actively seek out consultants, such as seeking out other reviewers, if none visit the article.

SUPPORT - Very non-confrontational, everyone wins, Wikipedia wins. Wikipedia is not a vote but this makes perfect sense. TeacherA (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: "such as seeking out other reviewers, if none visit the article." What do you mean? --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 01:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. TeacherA is almost surely not a teacher and likely not a WP neophyte. TeacherA is very probably a sock/troll operation intending to disrupt the GA process. This never ending series of alternate "ideas" is just more of the same. The only useful proposal here is the original one – TeacherA should not be allowed to have anything to do with the GA process at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Terminology in proposal shows a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works or a lack of knowledge of English to contribute at this level. --LauraHale (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Apart from the unvalid statements and misunderstanding of the recommendations, this seems like (if i may call it that way) some kind of obsessive ambition, which is overly bad for the GA process, and as a result, denied. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose As per all the above. At what point can we close off the first proposal, which is the only one that has garnered any support? Who needs to push the button on this? - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing discussion as bar enacted. Bencherlite^Talk 06:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Song of Ice and Fire GAN

Talk:A Song of Ice and Fire/GA1 has been open for seven weeks. The reviewer User:Sadads initially stated that the review might take a while due to the article length and his upcoming exams, which was okay since it allowed me some more time for copyediting and going on vacation. However, Sadads hasn't been on-wiki for over a month now, and he also hasn't replied to an e-mail I sent him four days ago. Due to the current uncertain situation, I ask an experienced GAN reviewer to close/fail/restart/whatever the current GAN (but leave it in the queue) so that it can be picked up for review by someone else. Thank you. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've restarted the nomination on the talk page, and I will archive the previous review shortly. Best of luck, Imzadi 1979 → 09:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Sudan women's national football team

I've resubmitted Sudan women's national football team for GAN after a quickfail because it does not appear to have been quickfailed against the criteria. Nothing in the review actually referenced the article text. Kaypoh has a history of problems with GAN on their contributions list. Can their actions in relation to the process be reviewed? --LauraHale (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

O.o three cases in less than 30 days? I'll be checking Kaypoh's history and reviews. Meanwhile, we should wait the rest of the cast to seek a solution. Saluts. --—Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 07:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been checking on his history and found the following reviews:

1. Talk:Galeon/GA1
2. Talk:Morphsuits/GA1
3. Talk:Clinical psychology/GA1
4. Talk:Club Nacional de Football/GA1 — Long time ago, but worthy for future considerations.
5. Talk:Markham municipal election, 2006/GA1 — Wizardman oversaw this, so no problem.

He also nominated 21 articles for GAN solely on 2 January 2012, which prompted a discussion about the limit for excessive GANs.

Nothing else to note now. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 07:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I would refer you to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 16 #Kaypohs nominations revisited. Pyrotec (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Well all of those five reviews listed one-above were "quick fails", but none of them were failed against the quick fail criteria (also stated above by LauraHale). Talk:Markham municipal election, 2006/GA1 was possibly justified. Clinical psychology was failed back in January because it had {{citation needed}} tags (plus other reasons) and it still has them. However, I believe that a more appropriate response would have been to put that review "On Hold" and wait to see whether the concerns were addressed. There is no evidence that any of the nominations were reviewed out against the requirements of WP:WIAGA. There don't appear to have been any complaints about Kaypoh's reviews, other than above. However, with reviews like this I would question whether Kaypoh should doing GAN reviews. Pyrotec (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've picked up Sudan women's national football team for review. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 21:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

GA can counter systemic bias

I remember, after I nominate many Singapore law articles for GAN, many people complain, but end up, Singapore WikiProject now has 14 more GAs, recognise hard work of Singapore Wikipedians and help counter systemic bias. Now I have new idea, to encourage faster reviews for GANs that counter systemic bias, so encourage Wikipedians to write and nominate GANs that counter systemic bias.

GANs from February that counter systemic bias, help to review faster:

• Poedjangga Baroe (1930s, nationalist magazine, Indonesia in Southeast Asia)
• Molwyn Joseph (politician, lead ruling party in Central America island country)
• History of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1648–1764) (17th/18th century Europe history)
• Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (disability, Singapore in Southeast Asia)
• Actuarial credentialing and exams (broad topic in economics and education)

GANs from March that counter systemic bias, help to review faster:

• Babrak Karmal (politician, Afghanistan in Asia, Muslim world)
• Swami Vivekananda (important person to Hinduism and Indian philosophy)
• History and evolution of the Rhodesian premiership (history, politics, Rhodesia in Africa)
• Protocol of Corfu (history, politics, Albania is East Europe)
• Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (history, politics, communism in Russia)
• Street children in India (poverty, India)
• Croatia–Hungary relations (international relations, East Europe)

Of course, when encourage Wikipedians to write and nominate GANs that counter systemic bias, must be careful. I see a few GANs about women's football teams in Africa, but they all cannot be broad, do not even list the players, so I fail one. But overall, if more Wikipedians write GANs that counter systemic bias and we reward them by reviewing their GANs faster, is good for Wikipedia.

--Kaypoh (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

First. What do you mean with counter systemic bias? And is it such an important thing you have to write it 7 times on two paragraphs?. Please explain yourself, and excuse me. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 07:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading the articles and having looked for the sources, do you think a team where they have not played in a single FIFA recognised match is going to have a list of players? It isn't reasonable to set this as a GAN criteria for women's football teams. The articles are nominated after being as complete as they possibly can be in terms of presenting information. And yes, they can all be broad based on the available sources. If I was nominating articles about teams with a long history of FIFA matches, then it might be different but I'm not. Hence, Zambia women's national football team is not at GA because it needs more completeness. --LauraHale (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahc, "systemic bias" is a pretty common term on Wikipedia. See WP:Systemic bias and WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Dana boomer (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I can agree systematic bias is a great big problem on English Wikipedia, which is one of the reasons why I am working so hard on creating articles about African women's football teams. I'm just at a loss as to how doing drive by nominations of articles for GA with zero intention of following up on the GAN counters systematic bias if no one is willing to do the work to fix them when they are reviewed. Relevance to the reviewers quick failing of an article where that might be an issue but they cited lack of information about fans (hello fatwa!), a roster (team doesn't officially exist, none available) and stadium (no indication they play in one) as a reason to quick fail. --LauraHale (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. We learn new things every day. I know now what is systemic bias. I agree with Laura. If you want to make a drive of that kind just to make a point about systemic bias, then it'll be a difficult process, since GA is about quality. I won't comment further until i clearly undesrtand the scope of systemic bias and its surroundings. --—Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 12:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can as a project do much to counter systemic bias. People are generally going to review and nominate topics that interest them and there is nothing wrong with that. However there is nothing stopping editors trying to counter it at an individual level, although that is in itself a form of bias. Personally I would much rather focus on the so called WP:Vital articles. As for the football teams, I think broadness is a relevant concern, but it would be good for the reviewer to show that more information exists before failing those articles. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

June/July review drive?

Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012

The backlog's getting terrible again. might be time to finally have one of these, Either 6/15 to 7/15 or through 7/31. Anyone willing to take the lead if I make the pages? I don't have the free time to take a major role. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I can help. I have some free time to invest here. And it can serve as my return since i left reviewing articles to improve my knowledge of the GA criteria some weeks ago... --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 21:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There are some old (Jan to March 2012) nominations still around. Some of these are long articles (I'm reviewing some) which has probably put some reviewers off. The rest seem to be the direct consequence of Wikicup 2012 rounds one and two; and I don't see why this project should be "bounced" into doing reviews for Wikicup. The cup after all is given to those who produce the article not to those who review them and in some cases it takes considerable efforts to do a proper review. A drive can result in superficial reviews: more quantity than quality. Pyrotec (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Pyrotec, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you that the majority of the backlog is due to the WikiCup. The Cup does give points for reviewing, and so far this year has reviewed more articles than it has nominated. According to the report, there are 40 editors with three or more articles nominated at GAN - only eight of these are currently Cup competitors. Of the top six nominators, representing 87 nominations, only one has been a Cup participant at all this year. I don't think we've seen a significant amount of quantity over quality in previous drives - that is why we try to have a "coordinator" for the drive, to check for things like poor reviews. Dana boomer (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes but we can propose with a different approach. I mean, we can do the drive on this way:

• The user picks an article for review.
• The user adds his name and the article on the drive page.
• The user starts the review.

• We can write a guideline that no more than 1 articles reviewed per day are valid for the drive.
• We can write that subpar reviews will not be accepted.

• After the user reviewed the article, one of some user selected to form a committee will inspect the review and approve/reject it.

We can also put a norm that no user with less than X number of edits can review an article (note: only for the drive), and after the drive is over, give barnstars to reviewers to encourage optimal reviews and overall participation. Is it a good idea? I'm open to be working on the drive as a collaborator and reviewer :) --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've started to make a page of the drive since i have time: June-July Good Article Review Round. I used the name Round to make a difference with the Drives from the GOCE and to let the participants know that it is not about quantity but quality.--Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 15:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahc, it's probably best to base the page on previous drives, in a format that people are familiar with. Limiting people to one article a day is a bad idea, as having people that can do several good reviews in a day, if they have time, is a major reason that previous drives have succeeded. Dana boomer (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just proposing ideas... At the end, we will make a consensus on the rules before starting the drive. Oh but Thanks for your comments! They're very welcomed :) --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 15:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, nowhere do I say that the majority of the backlog is due the wikicup. I've been reviewing continuously, apart from a recent break, at GAN for some three and half years so I'm quite familiar with the magnitude of backlog (for those that are not, it can be found here). I also review more than I nominate. Wikicup is possibly just a "bump" on the backlog, but more points are awarded for nominating than reviewing (at GA: 30 points for a pass and 2 for a review) and last year was (I believe) the first time that reviewing was considered at wikicup. Secondly, wikicup takes place over four rounds and no points are gained from GA unless the relevant articles are produced, nominated and passed within the time frame of each round. So wikicup must produce both short term peaks on the general trend; and pressure for short/quick reviews. Thirdly, in the April 2010 backlog elimination drive I did 58 reviews in one month and was second, but there were others who did 50, 40 and 30 (in round figures). I don't believe that many articles were "wrongly" passed or failed, however, some reviews were struck out as the reviews were clearly inadequate, but I do consider that overall effect might have been more quantity than quality. I've never organised a backlog elimination drive but I have participated in several and no drive has ever managed to spot check more than an insignificant fraction of the reviews. Finally, it can also be seem from the Backlog archive that drives only have a relatively short term effect. They bring in reviewers for the elimination drive, and they often appear at the next elimination drive, and so on, but does little in the way of continuity of reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, and it's true. I'm a little concern many reviewers will put quantity over quality. I think we can define a range, so, as an example, only nominations fro January to March 2012 are considered for the drive. Nominations from April to May would not be taken into consideration. I don't know. I'm working on the drive page here:User:Hahc21/June-July Good Article Review Round. I like the idea of a drive, but i would like to be sure that we can be quiet with the quantity thing. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Most drives, and there have been quite a few, run for exactly one month from the first day to the last day. A one month drive could (and has) had 50 to 80 reviewers with over 500 reviews completed in that timeframe. I very much doubt that you could check the quality of every review. I don't agree with your restriction on doing more than one review at a time. I currently have three on the go: one On Hold, one part done and one just opened (and none of them will be superficial). Neither do I agree with "The user is not bound to approve or fail an article." - what is the point of doing a review if there is no result? Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Pyrotec, again, you're making claims about the WikiCup that are simply not true. You say that the "wikicup takes place over four rounds and no points are gained from GA unless the relevant articles are produced, nominated and passed within the time frame of each round"; this is wrong, as it's over the time-frame of the year. At this stage in the competition, when the content was produced or nominated is pretty much irrelevant. It's also worth mentioning that, much like the backlog elimination drives, we (the judges) have been taking care to remove shorter reviews, and thereby discouraging inadequate reviews. As an experienced reviewer/writer myself, I'd hope that you'd take my word that the vast majority of the reviews offered by the WikiCup participants have been of a very high standard- meanwhile, I've seen very poor reviews of WikiCup-nominated articles by non-WikiCup participants. Especially when said alongside the statistics from Dana above, I really do not think that the WikiCup can be blamed for the backlog in any way. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC with J Milburn) "no points are gained from GA unless the relevant articles are produced, nominated and passed within the time frame of each round." is incorrect. The article must be produced, nominated and passed within this year, but not within each round. Points are given when the article is passed. Also, in the last drive (which I linked above), I believe the coordinator checked the majority of the reviews - you can see his notes on the drive page. So, it is possible, you just need to find someone with the experience/know-how/dedication to do it. I do agree, however, that the drives appear to have little effect on the overall number of nominations - it drops for a while, but shoots up even faster after the drive ("oh look! there's only three articles nominated in my category! better get my nom in while the page is empty..."). I definitely think the drive (if there is one) should be structured like the others, with the same basic rules - there has been no outcry over poor-quality reviews in previous drives (at least no more so than there is any other time, see above sections for examples), so I'm not sure that changing the format/rules/everything else would do anything more than confuse people. Limiting the months that can be reviewed is also not a good idea; while I understand the sentiment (older noms should be reviewed first), telling people what they can and can't review is a good way to alienate participants, not encourage them. Dana boomer (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I wrote it wrong. What i meant is that the user is not bound to pass the article. I will correct it. As i've seen on the comments, i got what i wanted: feedback. So, i wrote the same guidelines as past drives. Also, the month delimitaion is off. I imported almost all the formatting from past drives to mantain the format and the rules. Anything else please let me know, i'm just willing to help craft the drive. I have no comments about the "WikiCup" debate stated above. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 21:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never been a wikicup contest, so I'm not very familiar with the rules of wikicup. However it clear that some contestants are eliminated from round one on the bases of points scored and the same happens in the next round, etc, until there is a clear winner. I fail to see how contestants can gain points from GANs and FAC in a particular round unless that article is reviewed in that round. I have reviewed articles at GAN that were submitted as wikicup entries, so I know from my own reviews that wikicup can produce very good GAs, but it can also produce articles that are just sufficient to get GA (there are editors with sufficient experience of GA to know how to produce a pass, with little extra "meat"). I also agree that there are poor reviewers doing reviews (they may not be wikicup participants and they might not take part in backlog drives). However, I am aware of at least one editor who signed up to a GAN backlog drive (there may be more) who had all of his reviews overturned at GAR and his entries stuck off the backlog drive log - I re-reviewed some of those GA awards as personal GARs. I looked at the table referenced above, 217 GA were produced and 267 GA reviews carried over the whole of the wikicup. I've certainly done more GA reviews than that, so I have the "experience/know-how"; but I would not personally wish to check every one, so I lack the "dedication". I have very little interest in sport, video games and music (unless it is classical) so I have no interest in reviewing them at GAN, so I don't review them (other than in special cases). On that based I would not presume to "tell people what they can and can't review". Pyrotec (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So, the veredict was? I have a proposal (that surely will ger rejected but i don't lose anything asking). Maybe, after the drive is done, a team of X users (preferably the drive's reviewers) will oversee 3 random reviews for each participant to verify the quality of the review. This can be done between July 16-20. I'm just proposing ideas. Regards. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 20:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with doing something like that, though ideally they'll also be vetted over the course of the drive as well. IOccasionally a poor reviewer pops up, but usually not much is found of issue, thankfully. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So, what's the veredict? I will participate as both collaborating with the process and maybe reviewing some GANs during the process. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 01:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and made it official: Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012. Let's start signing up! Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow! You used my design! Hey, i'm interested on being a reviewer as well, and oversight the process. I don't know if I could act as a supporting co-ordinator since i'm not an admin but i'm willing to help on everything =). --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not eligible. I've done over 27,000 edits and completed over 450 GAN reviews (include GA sweeps), so I will continue to review as I've always done. Pyrotec (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, no problem. By now, only Wizardman and me are the reviewers. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 06:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'll do the quality checks on your reviews and remove points when/where/if necessary. Pyrotec (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Perfect =) --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 17:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is to be an elimination drive, I think it needs to be publicised more, particularly if it is to start in a few days! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

How do we do that? (Of course our target are users with the profile to review articles XD) —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 21:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made this banner for the drive. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 21:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think in the past, there has been a note at the top of the GAN page. Others may remember the details. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I volunteer to help out too. I took a long break but I've been back editing WP for months now. I'm ready to start helping out in maintenance/janitorial/etc. stuff again now too, so I just did a relatively easy one that's been listed since April.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone would like to send messages to previous frequent reviewers or wikiprojects on the drive, that would help greatly. I'll hit up a few that are usually good for this kind of stuff. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

GAN query

I created Talk:Keri Hilson/GA1‎ a few days ago but did not begin the review until today. Is it eligible for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine that if the review itself (which is the thing that requires effort and attention, rather than the non-effort of simply creating a placeholder) was performed during the drive's duration then it would count for it. GRAPPLE X 01:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that only reviews on which the review page was created after June 15, 2012 will count. But maybe we can make an exception. I don't know. I'll ask Wizardman to see what can be done. —Hahc21 15:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that Talk:Justin Bieber on Twitter/GA1 is being listed by someone, presumably because it closed after the start of the contest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The review started on 9th June and was completed on 10th June. The {{articlehistory}} was added on 17th during this edit [22]. I will remove it from the list. Pyrotec (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a note on the top of the section and i'm checkign all reviews to remove those started before June 15. —Hahc21 16:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The same contestant listed East Worldham which was passed on 4 June 2012. Pyrotec (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed those already. I'm checking all reviews. —Hahc21 16:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I've checked all reviews and removed those which doesn't meet the guidelines. I'll be doing this each 2 two or three days.

You missed one. Quick fails are not eligible. I've removed it. Pyrotec (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks :) I just checked the reviews started on June 15. I didn't checked if they were quickfails, since i'm a little busy today. Thanks for the help —Hahc21 17:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Valid reason for quick fail?

Hi,

See Talk:Ayrton Senna/GA1. The article was quick failed because the "author of the article has [not] been asked about this. Quick Fail." Is this a valid reason? I don't see a requirement that the nominator must ask the permission of the "author of the article" before nominating.

I think this should be reversed. (Or else the nomination directions changed to made this clearly a requirement.)

Thanks!

MathewTownsend (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not a valid reason for a quick fail. Unlike FAC, there is no requirement at GAN to ask the main contributor for "permission" to nominate an article. It's a good idea, but that's another topic. However, the large number of fact tags is a valid quick fail criteria. In this case, it probably would have been better for the reviewer to do a quick review, listing a few of the problems (the article is in need of quite a bit of work), and then fail the article because of the amount of work needed. There is a difference between a fail without hold and a quick fail - the latter takes less than 5 minutes, the former takes putting together a list of issues that together show that the article really needs more work than is reasonable to expect in a seven-day hold (this is subjective, yes). So, I don't think the fail itself (either as a quick fail or a fail without hold) was wrong, but the reason listed was. Dana boomer (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Reviewer

After helping someone correct their article for GA status I realized it is something I would like to get involved with. Helping people write things better seems to be a gift of mine. I would like to formally request a place in the GA review team <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Sign here. Select an article from WP:GAN and review it based on these criteria. If you have any questions use this page or ask another one of participants. —maclean (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Oakley77 block

I have gone ahead and blocked Oakley77 (talk · contribs) for violating his ban [23] from GAN. Talk:Missouri Fox Trotter/GA1 is an example of where he took over a GAN from another nominator without warning. Oakley77 is specifically banned from commenting on any GAN, which would definitely include this obnoxious behavior. --Rschen7754 04:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a little bit confused here. So what you're telling us is that you blocked Oakley77 for improving the article and addressing the concerns mentioned by another reviewer? Would you have placed the 48 hour block if Oakley77 saw the comments on GAN, acts upon it, but not mark those improvements directly on GAN? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. The issue is that Oakley77 was recently involved in some actions that led us to reach a consensus and banning him for 6 months to do anything related to GA: From nominating the article to commenting on GA reviews. He can, of course, edit the article to fix the issues written on the review, but he can't edit the review page. If he edits the review page, he is violating the ban. —Hahc21 05:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Basically. He's taking over for the nominator by editing the GAN page and declaring everything addressed; he's not necessarily familiar with the topic or the writing as well, so there's a strong likelihood that he's making a further mess of the article. He's not even giving the nominator a chance to reply to the concerns (considering that the nominator for the one I linked above is Dana boomer, it's my guess that Dana probably wanted to address it.) Also, what if the nominator disagrees with the review? --Rschen7754 05:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, it seems silly that he can fix whatever's listed on GAN but can't mark them as done (even in clear cut, undisputed cases). And is one's mastery in a particular topic a requirement for that individual to edit an article? If so, then I think a lot of us (including myself) will have to edit a lot less. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"And is one's mastery in a particular topic a requirement for that individual to edit an article?" - No, that's definitely not what I am saying. But to nominate an article, or to practically serve as the nominator for an article (which is basically what Oakley77 is doing), you should know enough about the subject to know if the article meets the criteria or not (completeness, for example). If you read the ban discussions, you will find that there were substantial concerns in this regard with Oakley77, which led to the ban in the first place. --Rschen7754 05:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@User:OhanaUnited: What Rs said. This is not an issue of content mastery, but having been community banned from participating in a specific process and having the consequences of participating explained to the user: blocking. The user made the choice to violate the community enacted ban and now has to deal with the consequences. --LauraHale (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits to the article in question were very poor quality, unsourced, factually incorrect, often changed nuance, and added nothing to the article. Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Beyond the article shown, he violated the ban here and here. Also like here. --LauraHale (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note, I was kind of confused to see someone other than Dana working on the GAN. I've left Dana a note on her talk page and hopefully this will get sorted with her input. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review of The Lokpal Bill, 2011

Hi. Could someone have a look at the recent GA review of The Lokpal Bill, 2011 (see Talk:The Lokpal Bill, 2011/GA1). I have concerns over the fact that it was reviewed by a new editor (User:India maniac) who registered an account less than ten minutes before passing the article. France3470 (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Undid it, and user's gotta be a sock of someone to do that, not sure who. I probably should just block him for that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Good article help desk

I floated this idea in March (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 16#Help Desk), but it didn't attract any attention. I bring it up again as we currently have the largest backlog I have ever seen here and one way to get sustainable reduction is to get more editors, which this may help encourage. Also we have recently had trouble with editors that do not understand the process and, while this may not have been much use in the above cases, this could be an easy way to improve the quality of reviews. However, for this to work it needs people willing to watch and respond to it. An idea of how it would look is here. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to watch and respond. I have enough time and the sufficient knowledge about the GA process, i think. Any way i can help you? --—Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 02:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought that this was the place to ask questions related to articles and nominations? Imzadi 1979 → 19:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean GreatOrangePumpkin? —Hahc21 15:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I know this one takes on the help desk role in many respects, but it also covers almost everything to do with GA. This could be a bit off putting to new reviewers. I think something like this would have encouraged me to start reviewing GAs earlier. Another advantage would be that keeping the information in a single place would make searching for answers a lot easier (I can't be the only one that does this at other noticeboards). AIRcorn (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless anyone specifically objects I am going to inact this in a week or so. I hope that most of you watching here will at least watch this page. I admit to being a little worried about how well this will work when a proposal for a trophy cabinet gets immediate response while this is largely ignored. However, if it does fail it should be easy enough to remove. AIRcorn (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be watching it. If you need some help, just ask. —Hahc21 00:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will drop a note here when I have it up and running (that is if there are no objections). AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

GAN Drive query

Am I counting reviews that I shouldn't? It seems I am the only person failing articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe is becasue everyone is putting them on hold for 7 days before failing (for personal reasons, I suppose; or to avoid renomination). And I'm only choosing articles I know surely will pass. —Hahc21 23:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Putting articles On Hold to allow corrective actions to take place is a valid response, it the reviewer believes that they can be fixed in the time scale. If they they are not brought up to the required standard in that time scale, then failing the article(s) is also valid response. Failing for personal reasons is not: if they are failed it should be because they are non-compliant. In fact, there is nothing to stop an article that has been failed being resubmitted. If the article was "properly" failed because it is non-compliant, then resubmitting it is somewhat pointless, but its not forbidden (and some one might pass it). Pyrotec (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I said for personal purposes because you're not bound to put the article on hold. You can directly fail it if you wish. Then, is a personal decision wether to fail it or wait 7 days. —Hahc21 15:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, it is a personal decision, which involves an estimate of whether anyone will fix it and whether it is fixable in a short time. However, what about fairness to the nominator, this backlog drive aught to be more than just reducing the list with a quick review and a "pass" or "fail" decision? An article is deemed non-compliant, and it might have been in the queue since January 2012 (I am reviewing nominations that old (see Talk:Economic history of Argentina/GA1), so fail it and get another "point", but that is hardly fair to the nominator(s)? That particular article is being fixed now and the nominator probably will be rewarded with "pass" in a week or so. It is quite possible to "game the system", here one editor has stated that only "likely passes" are being reviewed, other way is to only pick short articles. It's noticeable that some reviewers are reviewing "long articles", other have avoided them entirely. In the past, I've done 56 reviews in one month during one drive and 88 in another, in both cases I came second, but I still had "holds" and the nominators were given the option to fix the problems. I don't intend to that many this time, but I could (25 days left, after all). Pyrotec (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well i agree with you. As a nominator I feel is unfair to directly fail the article if it can be fixed in a matter of days. This is my first drive (both as a participant and as coordinator) and I feel we need to be careful when reviewing articles and passing/failing them just for points. This days, I've picked only articles that, after doing an overview of them, I know they'll surely pass. Mid-drive, i'll swap my strategy and review some long articles to make a balance XD. —Hahc21 19:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

There are five other reviewers with failed articles; Grandiose has three so far. However, it may be that not everyone is including their fails. Some quick fails aren't eligible, right? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to thoroughly fail things that I would quickfail. I am shooting for the 25 award so if some of mine aren't going to count let me know in time to get to 25.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No quickfail is eligible. I'll be checking the reviews and advise editors. Tony, one of your reviews, Morse code, can be considered as QF, but because you took a time and wrote what needed to be done, It will be counted. Regards. —Hahc21 01:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Holds do count. Just make sure you check up on the articles placed on hold and make a decision after the drive's over. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually all articles you've picked up for review between June 15 and july 15 will be counted, even if you finish the review after July 15. —Hahc21 22:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Update

I finally re-did the numbers in the FAQ to present 2011's average. We're basically holding steady: one more nom on the list each day compared to 2010, and one fewer waiting for a reviewer each day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Users with most GAs

Main pages: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles and User:Hahc21/GA Userlist Entry

hello,

is there a list of users with the most GAs? If not, how can it be created? Can a bot count all that? It would be interesting to know who are the first. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 18:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You know, I was thinking about bringing up this issue myself. There are pages for Wikipedians by featured lists, featured topics, and DYKs. Surely GAbot can be programmed to create Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by good article nominations, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Nominations is not the same as GAs. Some GANs fail, some fail and are resubmitted, some pass, some "passes" become FAs and some "passes" degrade and stop being GAs. Also, at any given time there are only a few hundred (say 600 at a bad time) nominations, but at this point in time there are 14,949 GA's (see Category:Wikipedia good articles). Pyrotec (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

To respond to Muboshgu, the history pages show that the featured lists and featured topics are produced by a bot (the same one - Rick bot), but DYK is a table of "claims" by the individual editors. Pyrotec (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a manually updated page like the DYK one would work better. The FL/FA/FPO pages do keep track of successful noms that are later demoted (blue stars for current featured content, white for former content). Perhaps using a table like the DYK page, with one column for current GAs and one for delisted GAs would work. GRAPPLE X 19:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I can design the page XD —Hahc21 19:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Re Pyrotec: I did mean GA noms that pass, not all noms. The RickBot updated pages all say they are for noms that passed. I thought that went without saying, but I guess I should've been explicit. It would be nice to have it automatically updated by a bot (I feel like I spend a lot of time manually updating my DYK count), but a manual page would be better than no page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The other thing is that anyone can submit a GAN, unlike FA/FL/FPO, where it has to be someone who has made significant contribution, and DYK, where there are credits for both nominating and creating/expanding. Someone would need to figure out who (and frequently not a singular who) should get credit for each GA, which sounds to me to be a daunting task and a (likely) subjective one in terms of applying whatever criteria are developed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that this can be solved with individual efforts. Each user may count how much GAs they've amassed and add them to the page. It's ridiculous for a single person to do the job with almost 14,500 GAs to date. I know it'll be an uncomplete list until all users have properly added their GAs but step by step we'll reach that completeness. I'll develop a template to make it easier for all users to add and update their GA count. —Hahc21 20:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset—I would imagine following the lead of DYK and having a separate table for articles nominated but not significantly worked on might be a good idea, and if there are multiple contributors there's nothing to stop each of them claiming credit for the articles in question. GRAPPLE X 20:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I have developed a draft here: User:Hahc21/List of Wikipedians by Good Articles. Also, i've created the template {{User:Hahc21/GA Userlist Entry}} to be used when adding data to the table. —Hahc21 21:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Not bad. I didn't even think of logging reviews. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers needs their credits too. XD. And, until we design an automated version of the list, we can use that. Please put your counts on it to have some entries before miving it to main namespace. —Hahc21 21:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If I understand your template correctly it's going to be a nightmare to update; users rising places in the table will need to update all the other templates to reflect changed rankings. A sortable wikitable with field using just markup and not templating would alleviate that issue, I believe. GRAPPLE X 22:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm working on that. I saw a template that automatically updates the positions using parser functions. Let me think on a workaround for that. —Hahc21 22:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Another issues is that I personally have no idea how many articles I've nominated that failed. I know I'm not batting 1.000, but I don't log all my fails, only the passes. I'd also have to research which articles I've reviewed, as I don't have that list handy. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Until i find a workaround, I deleted the first parameter from the table and added the sortable element. Think now it works. If you have no idea, you can leave it blank or write and the template will write {{n/a}}. I do have my list handily ordered, but you can calmly do the search. You can make the task easy of you search for GAn on your contributions and select that only the Talk namespace to be shown. Then, count the N's —Hahc21 22:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work, but what I meant was just the number of successful GA, not GAN or such. Then a bot can update it easily.--GoP_T^C_N 09:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If someone wants to create a bot or hire an existing one that would be great. Otherwise I will request one at WP:BOTREQ. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 10:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

How would a bot figure out who the nominator was for articles not currently at WP:GAN? How WP:WBFAN is maintained is by recreating it (effectively from scratch), every time Rick Bot runs, from the current contents of the by-year summary lists, like WP:FA2012. The bot also adds new entries to these lists as articles are promoted, which it figures out based on the nomination being moved to the monthly log file (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2012). The other lists maintained by Rick Bot, WP:WBFLN, WP:WBFTN, are done similarly using by-year lists like WP:FL2012 and WP:FT2012. It wouldn't be hard to add a task to update a GA list, but the trick is figuring out where the source information would come from. Looking around a little, it looks like Wikipedia:Good articles/Log indicates newly passed GAs, but not the nominator and (without reading all the old versions) doesn't have complete history. I suspect creating logs of the nomination history for all the GAs would not be easy. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have a question: If GA bot is updating the article's history, then he can also update the aforementioned list by searching the nominator who put the template on the talk page. Why does it need a log to know who is the nominator? Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 18:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To maintain a count, one approach is to start with 0 and increment/decrement it with every change that might affect it. The problem with this approach is if you ever get off, you stay off forever. The standard programming fix for this is to, every now and then, start from 0 and recount. GA bot is in a position to do the former, but not the latter. Note that we'd need to be able to do the latter at least once to establish the starting point for an increment/decrement approach. Doing this in the way you're suggesting gets more and more expensive as the number of GAs increase and as time goes on (the relevant changes in the history get further and further back) - with nearly 15,000 GAs figuring out who the nominator was this way means reading at least some kind of edit history for each and every GA. Reading one per second (which is probably too fast - bots are supposed to be careful not to induce too much load on the system), doing this would take over 4 hours if the first history change is the right one. If the average number of histories the bot has to read is more like 3, it's now over 12 hours. The way FAs are handled allows a total recount to be done by reading only the 10 by-year summaries. This makes it so cheap, that "total recount" is what Rick Bot does every day for FAs. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Substance of review oversight

It's been indicated that as a part of the current review drive that there are some editors overseeing the reviews that are being done. Are any of them verifying that any passed articles are being listed on WP:GA? I've had to manually list two of my "promoted" nominations myself. In short, an article can't be considered "listed" as a GA until, well, it's listed as a GA.

There seems to be some confusion over what the bot does in the process. In short, it adds new nominations to the section of the queue based on the parameters on the talk page of the article. It also updates the status of nominations, including removing closed nominations (whether passed or failed). It also will add the to the article itself if needed. It does not list the article because the {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} templates do not contain the exact subsection of the overall list. That last crucial step is part of the "paperwork" that every reviewer needs to do, and if it isn't done because people thing the bot is doing it, then our list will be out of sync with the supposed status of our articles. Imzadi 1979 → 00:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As one of the checkers, I'm not checking that the article is (fully) listed at GA (unless the dates look wrong - some reviews pre-dating the start of the drive were listed in-order to claim the "points"). If (when) an editor claims a "pass" or a "fail" I look at the review and come to a decision whether it is acceptable or not.

As a reviewer, if its a pass, I add the {{articlehistory}}, GA icon, list it at GA, and in recently listed GAs. I know that there is a bot, but I did it before the bot was introduced and I continue to do it by hand. Pyrotec (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty sad that nominators are being forced to list their own articles at WP:GA, as Awardgive (talk · contribs) just had to list 6 missing "passed" articles in this edit. The terminology in {{ArticleHistory}} isn't passed/failed, its listed/not listed. How can we have GAs that are "listed" according to their talk pages if the articles aren't listed at WP:GA? We have a lot of new reviewers because of this drive, and now is the best time to teach them this before it gets ingrained that they don't have to do something they actually have to do. Imzadi 1979 → 07:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The instructions for "passing" an article on WP:GAN state:

1. Replace {{GA nominee}} on the article's talk page with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}.[1] The "page=" parameter should be a number only - no letters. Please include "GA" in your edit summary.
2. List the article on Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section.[2] Encourage the successful nominator(s) to review an article themselves.
3. Add {{Good article}} to the article (It dosn't matter where this is placed as it will automatically present itself at the top of the page).

Listing the article is the second of three steps, but recently almost all of the articles passed by GAN drive participants from the Transport section have been listed on WP:GA, by their nominators not their reviewers after successful completions of the reviews. Frankly, that's unacceptable. Imzadi 1979 → 07:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've also seen one (possibly more) review(s) where the reviewer just closed the /GA1 with a "green star" and entered the review as "On Hold" at the GAN backlog drive page to claim a "point". The nominator (in good faith) did the {{GA nominee|~~~~~|subtopic=|page=}} to {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}} change and then "listed" the article at GA. Well, since I add the {{ArticleHistory}} for most if not all the the articles that I "list" or update it if I "delist" (if the article was a GA and I removed it), and that has been of the order of about 100 per year for almost four years, so I do know what the terminology is even if I use "pass" and "fail" on talkpages. Pyrotec (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Illegal immigration

Hi everyone - It would be appreciated if anyone who has a few minutes could poke their heads into Illegal immigration. A new user has just removed a significant amount of info (70,000 kb and 100 references) and then nominated the article at GAN. A couple of us have already expressed our opinion of this on the talk page, but I need to go offline now, so more eyes on the situation would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a mess to me. The edits to the article are extreme and the clearing of the talk page (claimed to have been "archived", but was just deleted) seems arbitrary. The article as it is now is also not particularly well written. I'm a bit puzzled as to how a new user would know the entire GAN process, and I'm strongly considering removing the nomination, which has not been done correctly and hence isn't showing up on the GAN page, though it keeps showing up as "new" on the history page because of that problem. (The user also deleted the WikiProject templates, which I have restored.) My thought is that the article should be restored to its original shape, and discussion of any changes that the new user wants continue on the talk page. In any event, the article is nowhere near GA level. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I reverted that user's edits. It's unclear to me what that user was trying to do, but I suspect bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Core Contest

		2012 Core Contest
		Let it be known that the third incarnation of the Wikipedia Core Contest will take place from August 1 to 31 2012 CE/AD.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)