Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article nominations/New Proposals for GAN, Part II

< Wikipedia:Good article nominations
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia.
Feedback
Welcome. This page is to provide feedback on recently implemented proposals from the first request for comment. At this stage proposals 1 and 3 have been made public.


Proposal 1: Instructions edit

Feedback regarding the new instructions should be posted here.

North8000 edit

Nice work, but it's missing something really important.....a link from the wp:ga page. It should have links from everywhere GA related.

Nice work!

Sincerely,

North8000

Thanks for the feedback! I'll see what I can do when I get a chance. :) --Dom497 (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything mentioned n the tab should now have the tab transcluded. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AmericanLemming edit

The prose of the "Wikipedia:Good article nominations" page needs some copy-editing. Here's some examples:

1. "but are not yet qualified as quality for featured articles": This probably should be reworded.
2. "Getting an article to be reviewed can take several weeks so please be patient." I'm not sure about this one, but I think it looks better with a comma after "weeks."
3. "Nominator's": Nominators
4. "issue's": issues
5: "get the article to meet with the criteria": get the article to meet the criteria
6. "if you are aiming at nominating an article for Featured Article status": Again, I think the wording is a little awkward.

3, 4, and 5 should definitely be changed. I'm pretty sure that 2 should have a comma. As for 1 and 6, that might just be my personal preference. Anyway, take a look at these and see what you think. By the way, I do like the tabs.

AmericanLemming (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hopefully fixed most of these and made some other edits to this section. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gbern3 edit

Considering there is a large List of good articles nominations, arranged by subject box at the beginning of the page, the table of contents seems redundant (especially since this box is right above the table of contents). The new formatting looks a lot like the formatting at the beginning of the GA subject pages, WP:GA/T for example. Since those pages don't have a TOC, I don't see why this one should. I think it would look better if you removed it; however, I realize this is non-standard and would be a big change. Perhaps it's best to wait for others to weigh in on this suggestion. //Gbern3 (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did this wrong. I posted a suggestion for the Nominations page and not the Instructions page. My mistake. I have no qualms about the Instructions page. I think it looks neat and is very thorough. Great job. //Gbern3 (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to implement it anyway as I agree with you. Not sure if the bot will let it stay, but we will see. AIRcorn (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for implementing it. I think the change looks better. //Gbern3 (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axl edit

I use a green-on-black skin to view Wikipedia, to reduce background glare from a white screen. I cannot see the text on the page. I can see only the wikilinks, visible as floating purple words. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anyone cares. Anyway, I shall no longer undertake GA reviews. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia:Skin are you using. The ones under preferences all seem to work[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. AIRcorn (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the script that I have in monobook.js :-

importScript('User:Alex_Smotrov/edittop.js');

// User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js importScript('User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js'); assessmentMyTemplateCode = ["{{WPMED|class=|importance=}}", "{{TemplateB|class=|importance=}}", "{{TemplateC|class=|importance=}}"]; assessmentDefaultProject = "WPMED"; //

Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I copied it into my monobook (see User:Aircorn/monobook.js) and purged everything. Didn't seem to make any difference. I may have done something wrong as I don't play in this area much. You could probably change the colour yourself without much trouble. AIRcorn (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of differences between your page and my page. I'm not sure if that matters. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No dice. I just removed the background green from the whole tab header so hopefully that makes a difference. Looks better in my opinion anyway. I think there will need to be some colour on the tabs though to differentiate them. Is there any green colour at Wikipedia:Good articles that works. AIRcorn (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you tried using my monobook setting, but you still don't see a green-on-black format? My problem is that the text within the page is invisible on a black background. Section titles appear green. Wikilinked words appear purple. A block of text that contains wikilinks appears as floating purple wikilinks on a black background. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. With your monobook settings nothing visibly changed when viewing pages here. AIRcorn (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I don't understand what change to my settings gives me this particular skin. Thanks for trying to help me. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3: Tabs edit

Feedback regarding the tabs added to the top of eight main Good Article pages should be posted here.

Aircorn edit

  • We included discussion on the TAB and it links to WT:GAN. This is the most highly watched page so is probably the best one for general questions. However, the Main tab links to WP:GA, which has its own discussion at WT:GA. I think this could be a little confusing. I am wondering if we would be better to simply redirect WT:GA, WT:GACR, WT:GAR and other associated talk pages to WT:GAN so everything is centralised? Or maybe we should not have a discussion link at all? Or just leave it as it is? AIRcorn (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think think centralization would be more efficient. WT:GAN is very active and has frequent discussions taking place so it might be better to keep it separate. However, WT:GA, WT:GACR, and WT:GAR don't have a lot of traffic so I don't think it would be a problem to combine those pages at all. //Gbern3 (talk) 11:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/New_Proposals_for_GAN,_Part_II&oldid=1090663190"