Wikipedia

User:Maile66/GA

< User:Maile66

GA Review

edit
  1. Pick an article
  2. Pick a template to use
  3. Review it
  4. Pass or Fail it:
 

When you are happy that the article meets the Good article criteria you pass it by doing the following:

  1. Replace the {{GA nominee}} template on the article's talk page with {{GA|~~~~~|topic=|page=}}
  2. Fill in the topic and page number of the review. The five tildes supply the date of the review. The topic parameter refers to the topic abbreviations used on the GA page, but the template automatically converts GAN subtopics into GA topics, so reviewers can simply copy the parameter value from one template to the other. "Page" should be the number of the review subpage (that is, the n in {{Talk:ArticleName/GAn}}). The "page=" parameter should be a number only - no letters.
  3. Update any WikiProject templates on the article talk page by changing the "class" field value to "GA" and save the page using "GA" in the edit summary.
  4. List the article at Wikipedia:Good articles under the appropriate section and update the tally at the bottom of that section.
  5. A bot will add the Good Article icon to the article and let the successful nominator know that the article has passed. You can also leave a personal note for the nominator or use the Template:GANotice.

Timeline GAP between opening a review page, and actually doing the review diff

edit

I realize this is an ongoing issue (and not only at GAC), but I was hoping there is a better way, a timeline guide for potential reviewers. The difference between GA reviews and others such as DYK, is that whoever is allegedly doing a review, is the only one who can wrap it up. Right now, like a lot of nominators, I've been waiting since May for a review of Gloria Swanson. I did not anticipate a rapid response, as this is a hefty article to read through. Long story short - Gloria Swanson/GA1 was finally opened on August 19. And then ... absolutely nothing. I've recently posted an inquiry on the potential reviewer's talk page, and they are otherwise active, but no response.

As frustrating as that is, it's not a first for me or anyone else. It's just ... well ... rude. And unproductive. But probably in step with how Wikipedia works. There are assorted instances where a reviewer does their thing, and the nominator never responds. Or the reviewer never finishes the review, and doesn't respond to attempted contacts with them. Or any number of variations on those.

I don't suppose we could come up with a very basic guideline, that if an editor opens a GAC template and says they'll be the reviewer ... they have to at least actually begin the review within a given time period. And if they don't, the template can be cancelled out, or someone else can take over the review. — Maile (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a no-brainer to me. And as an admin yourself, you're well aware of WP:IAR. If you get nothing back in a decent timescale, like a week, just get the GA review page deleted. No need for anything to change here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Understood, and I will do that. But I just wish there was a more productive process here. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
There's literally no reward for GAN reviewers. Just like everywhere else on Wikipedia. Even the WP:WIKICUP assigns the same value of reviewing and promoting (or otherwise) a GAN to that of a simple FLC or FAC review. That's complete nonsense. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Maile, aside from the instruction that if you haven't worked on an article you should consult with those who have on the article talk page prior to nominating it, the review timeline guide seems to be the most frequently ignored part of the GA nomination instructions. Per GANI#R2, number 4: Remember: Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. Do not stop half way through and just leave it. Consider reviewing only one or two articles at a time and plan to wrap up your review in about seven days. As an admin, you can just delete the review page, notify the reviewer, and adjust the GA nominee template if a reviewer hasn't returned in a couple of weeks, even if they're active elsewhere. Most nominators just have to wait it out until the delay is painful, a month or (much) more, before they finally ask for help. And the laggard reviewers aren't always cooperative. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

My GAs

edit

Your GA nomination of Audie Murphy filmography

edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Audie Murphy filmography you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Audie Murphy filmography

edit

The article Audie Murphy filmography you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Audie Murphy filmography for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chris troutman -- Chris troutman (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

GT Reviews

edit
  1. Battleships of Italy 2015.09.08

GA Reviews for others

edit
  1. Crocheron–McDowall House 2023.04.22
  2. Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign 2021.10.11
  3. Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2020.11.03
  4. Jane Withers 2020.11.03
  5. William Austin Burt 2020.11.02
  6. Sue Bruce-Smith 2020.10.03
  7. India Ferrah 2020.09.13
  8. Angie Turner King 2020.09.09
  9. Marian Anderson 2020.09.01
  10. Jesse H. Jones 2020.02.23
  11. Kapiʻolani 2019.12.20
  12. Valentina Tereshkova 2019.07.12
  13. Elizabeth Kekaaniau 2018.07.12
  14. 1892 Legislative Session of the Kingdom of Hawaii 2018.03.16
  15. Henry Wilson 2016.07.15-17
  16. Spring Brook (Lackawanna River) 2016.07.07
  17. Trafalgar Square 2015.12.22
  18. Porcupine (Cheyenne) 2015.11.26-12.14 - (Fail)
  19. Joan Lindsay 2015.11.20-12.11 - (Fail due to lack of response)
  20. Lovejoy Columns 2015.11.08
  21. Gregor MacGregor 2015.10.26-11.03
  22. Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar 2015.10.25
  23. Cleveland Centennial half dollar 2015.10.25
  24. Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar 2015.10.25
  25. Kawakita v. United States 2015.10.23
  26. The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise 2015.10.22
  27. Davison House 2015.10.10
  28. Webster Sycamore 2015.10.10
  29. Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal 2015.10.09 (failed)
  30. Leni Riefenstahl 2015.07.05 (failed)
  31. Lathrop House (Vassar College) 2015.07.03
  32. Castaing machine 2015.06.28
  33. Gunnersbury Triangle 2015.04.22
  34. Dunster Working Watermill 2015.04.17
  35. Wendover Air Force Base 2015.04.14
  36. Seeley G. Mudd Chemistry Building 2015.04.04
  37. Xu Lai 2015.03.24
  38. The Exaltation of the Flower 2015.03.23
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Maile66/GA&oldid=1151258681"