Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps

Running total moved

I thought it better to move it to it's own subpage. So it can now be found here! Lara❤Love 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it better as a project subpage than a talk page issue. Geometry guy 21:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

First off why are we keeping a running total? Just to keep track I suppose? Also, are we listing all articles we've reviewed, or all articles that were delisted or went to GA/R? It seems uneccessary to mention every little article you look over, only the ones that required additional attention. Drewcifer 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess so you don't review ones that have already been reviewed. T Rex | talk 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I was just going in alphabetical order, but I guess that makes sense. Drewcifer 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's for a combination of reasons. Not so much to avoid double reviews, considering everyone should be using the sweep list and review template to alert everyone to what section they are working on, but to allow for us to note which articles in a given category have been reviewed considering there are articles added everyday. Second, in case there is a need to quality check (which I really hope not). Third, for award giving reasons. There will be awards given out for this, which ones and for what have yet to be revealed, but a running total will contribute to the determination of who gets what. LARA♥LOVE 03:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Stabilized version

Because everyday more GA is added, we're establishing an edit version that the sweeps is based on. Then we can deal with the newly listed GA afterwards. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking. LARA♥LOVE 06:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Advertising?

We seriously need more than 4 people doing sweeps. That's 702 reviews per person, if it's only 4. T Rex | talk 20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There will be more participation soon. A few reviewers have school stuff going on right now, but will be joining us in a couple weeks or so. I'll be starting reviews here soon. I'm a little burned out after the backlog quality reviews, which still aren't done. The thing is, we don't want just anyone doing sweeps, at least not these initial ones. It defeats the purpose if there are shotty sweep reviews. Completely pointless. So only experienced reviewers need to participate in this the first time around. If there are quality reviewers that you trust, invite them, but please no mass advertising. Lara♥Love 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible change in procedure

GA/R has, expectedly, blown up. There really isn't a lot of participation and the page is getting a little overwhelming. Additionally, it's not really being utilized correctly. Anyway, I think a better option would be as follows:

• If an article clearly fails to meet the criteria (those especially that were promoted back in early to mid-2006 or so, just delist them with a summary of why. List what issues to be corrected and be sure there's a link to the criteria and GA/R.
• For those that have a few minor issues (more than can quickly and easily be corrected by you, put them on hold. Remember to check back on these in a timely manner.
• For those that you would normally send to GA/R, list the issues the article has and tell them that the article will be delisted if corrections are not made within seven days. List those here as Questionable. You can even put (?-date) beside it above. I will check the progress on these. So that's the difference between on hold and this. LaraLove♥ 19:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I think the backlog at GA/R could be a little bit relieved if every regular went back through the list. Alot of them have been fixed (The Reputation for example) and alot of them haven't received attention by all of the regulars in the first place. We have enough people who frequent GA/R to take care of every last one of the reviews, it's just that not every review gets complete participation. Maybe a notice on the Talk page might do some good. I'll give that a try. Drewcifer 20:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think our sweeps isn't fast enough, and I wasn't helping sweeps this week because I'm helping out with university 1st year students' orientation (which is 8am to 10pm, 10pm is NOT a typo). Is it time now to get more help? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

More help is on the way. This has been a bad week for me to. I've got a lot going on with school starting and all, but I'll be starting my reviews soon. I agree it's not fast enough. We're going to try to get a bot that will list those promoted more than 6 months ago. Start there. I'll keep everyone updated. LaraLove♥ 03:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics GAs

Mathematics GA reviews are currently suspended until furthur notice. Please avoid conducting reviews to the articles listed under that section until matters are cleared up. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Physics and chemistry articles as well... any other highly technical scientific articles that I may have overlooked as well. Experts in these fields will review the articles when able. Until then, they are exempt from sweeps. Regards, LaraLove♥ 04:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to a request by Lara, I have passed some of the mathematics articles that I looked at previously. I checked them briefly again before doing this. However, I did not pass the following articles: Exponentiation, Euclidean geometry, Hilbert space, Order theory, Ordinal number. I recommend sequential GA/R for these five articles, with notification to WT:WPM in each case to increase the chance of expert input and editor improvements. Geometry guy 20:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Awards and running totals, I think this is a good concept but a bad idea. The thought of rewarding editors for their effort is commendable and hopefully will encourage good reviews. From the outside looking in saying people will get rewards is a slap in the face to editors who did all the work in the first place, to log on and find an article you've worked hard was delisted without prior discussion then come here and find that the person delisting is getting rewarded is offensive. Gnangarra 06:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

First, we're not "delist-happy" people. We don't delist just because we want to, we got good reasons to delist them. Second, the purpose of the sweeps is not to delist articles. We're not running a delist drive. We're running a quality check drive to ensure all articles meeting the GA standard. Let me explain (as I did this plenty of times so getting better at explaining...), there wasn't a criteria for GA until mid 2006. Some articles are promoted simply because an editor feels that it looks like a good article (happens before the criteria was implemented). Some are promoted by inexperience reviewers and miss out key areas in their reviews. A few articles were deteriorated slowly after they are promoted. Common problems found from these articles include lack of references, limited amount of references, no fair-use rationale on some images or original research. The sweeps is long overdue, and we took the initative to check every single GA to ensure their qualtiy remain satisifactory. As you can see, the initial phrase only allows experienced reviews because we don't want any bad articles slipping through our fingers nor delisting articles that met the standard. If there's any particular review that makes you feel concerned, please let us know. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then explain the message on USA PATRIOT Act, Title III then. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I got no problem with the intent of the review, I can accept the lack of discussion in the process given the volume. What I have issue with is that seeing an Award is on offer for participation in this effort and that the awards are undefined with special ones(But you'll still get a star (maybe something better)) implies something underhanded in the process. Gnangarra 06:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that there're over 2,800 GA and only 10 reviewers, that brings to an average 280 reviews per reviewer. The main problem is that we don't have a lot of trusted and experienced review members (and also active Wikipedians). If we don't have incentive I don't think the sweep will get going. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I can certainly understand Gnangarra's original comment about "the editors who did all the work in the first place, log on and find an article you've worked hard on was delisted without prior discussion". Over the past week, as a result of sweeps, there has been a lot of delisting and holding going on, and it must come as a surprise to hard-working editors who have written a particular article. I'd like to ask to be excused from the Sweeps please. Initially thought I could contribute and be part of what is going on, but now would prefer to just participate at WP:GAC when I can. Thanks... Johnfos 09:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a shame some user's articles have to be delisted, but GA status can't really be awarded out of sympathy. Think of poor User:Lord Emsworth who's had 24 of his FAs delisted. Epbr123 09:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, here's what I have to say, and I'm not pleased that we've lost a reviewer over something so ridiculous as this, so I apologize in advance if this comes off as unsympathetic. Awards can be given out by anyone to anyone for anything. To say that I shouldn't give out awards to reviewers who spend hours of their time reviewing dozens to hundreds of articles because the custodians of some of those articles will be upset that their articles got delisted is just beyond me. You say you don't disagree with the process, you just disagree with the fact that reviewers will be getting rewarded for their long-term dedication to the project. But GAC can award reviewers who fail nominations? Editors can be given barnstar for their participation in XfD which deletes work? That's unfortunate. I'm rewarding them for their work, for the number of reviews they completed, regardless of the review outcome. I'm not rewarding them for how many article custodians they can piss off or offend.

As far as implying that I'm doing something underhanded because I haven't revealed what the awards will be, that's also ridiculous. Here are the reasons the awards have not been revealed:

• I don't know what they'll be: I don't know how many reviewers we're going to have, how many reviews each reviewer will average, how long reviewers will participate, how quickly to expect everything to go. This has never been done before, so I don't want to say you get award 1 for X number of reviews, and award 2 for Y number of reviews, etc. because I don't know which awards will be most appropriate at this time.
• It's not about getting awards. From seeing the setup for awards for GAC backlog drives, I don't want reviewers striving for a particular award and stopping. This process is long-term with limited reviewers participating by invitation only. Having awards set encourages an end in participation when a particular milestone has been reached. We don't need that. I want reviewers that are reviewing to improve the process, not simply to gain an award. However, I am going to award them something special for all their efforts, and telling them that is encouragement.

By the time we complete this (estimated to be around 2012 at this rate), over 3,000 reviews will have been completed by a handful of reviewers, the list sure to change (and hopefully grow) over time. So I shouldn't reward that? I can't agree.

Awards will be customized to each reviewer. Some may be handed out at a particular milestone, some reviewers will probably receive more than one. I mean, there are so many variables. Quantity, quality (which I expect from each of these reviewers, otherwise they wouldn't have been invited), dedication, etc. All these things will be factored in when I give the awards. LaraLove 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, many of us are here not for the awards in the first place. Awards are nice for showing appreciation, but I can assure you we're not here to delist articles just so we get a new barnstar. As LaraLove pointed out above, we have thousands of articles to review, and completing the re-reviews is much more important than focusing on awards. This widespread sweep of all current GAs hasn't been done before, and we all recognize that it needs to be done to continue to uphold the quality of GA. I'd prefer not to delist articles, but unfortunately some articles have slowly degraded over time or were passed before the current GA standards. However, if your article is delisted, your can renominate it again when it meets the GA criteria. By doing so, you will further improve your article as you edit it to meet GA standards. --Nehrams2020 04:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then why aren't you at the very least notifying the main editors of the GA sweep (I only noticed this sweep business through sheer luck)? And why are you treating GAs like FAs? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We're posting the notice on the article talk page to alert custodians. We're not treating them like FAs. I don't know that FA does sweeps. I suppose they could... but I don't know. I don't really do much with FA. Regardless, this is a matter of project quality. An article must continue to satisfy the criteria in order to retain it's listing. Simple as that. We're not on a mission to shrink the list. We're on a mission to ensure every listed article meets the criteria. Regards, LaraLove 05:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the main editors are usually the ones in the best position to fix the article. If you tell them, then this will help get article quality up. Isn't that the goal of these sweeps? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's my opinion that the majority of editors would have the article watchlisted if they cared that much about it. LaraLove 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Section retracted

My apologies for the upset message. I did a survey of the editors here, as my assumption was that none of them ever worked on articles to GA or FA status. That is clearly inaccurate, and I've basically wronged good editors, who IMO should be valued more highly than those who only work on meta pages. So my sincerest apologies to all sweepers who I have offended with my post.

I would like to point out that I still don't really feel very encouraged to edit Wikipedia. It would be very nice if you could notify the principle editors of the article sweeps. It's actually quite easy to find out this info, just use this tool: http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act%2C_Title_III It gives a breakdown of editor workload. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting tool, but it shows only edits made before 1 July 2007. As to editor notification, I actually don't want to know who wrote a particular article. I prefer to conduct blind reviews. This is a question of neutrality of a reviewer: if you know the editors, you can be influenced by you knowledge. Ruslik 07:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Click on preferences, it goes back further than this. My point is that often the best ones to fix a good article is the one who contributed to it the most. It also shows that you want to help them out, if you give constructive feedback. I thought the whole point behind GA review was to get the quality of GAs up? I must respectfully disagree with this neutrality suggestion... please! tell the editors who spent hard work (often hours and hours or even days) that their article is going to be delisted from GA!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Ta bu also meant that once you had finished reviewing the article and have put it on hold to also leave a message on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article, as they are more likely to assist in addressing the issues since they have spent so much time on it in the past. It's not necessary to focus on which people have written the article before you start reviewing it, but by checking after you have completed the review will allow you to see who you should contact. --Nehrams2020 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

For most articles, we alert editors through the article's talk page 7 days before removing them. The few that got bold delisted are the ones that are really obvious they can't make it without major rework. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The point he's making is that he wants to be notified on his talk page, and wants that to be a standard in all cases. I just nominated an article for FAR where this procedure is required. Notifying three Wikiprojects and (I think) four users using that tool took me about ten minutes. May not take that long for someone with a faster internet connection, but I can't see requiring this of GAR or sweeps. It's just adding too much to the process and will discourage editors from listing articles, I think. However, if this is proposed and passes, I'll draft a template to be posted to the talk pages. LaraLove 18:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So, am I reading this correctly? You aren't interested in notifying principle authors who might be able to fix the articles? Or am I reading this wrongly. I don't see why this is adding too much to the process. Again I say, I thought that sweeps were implemented to improve articles? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The primary author should be notified if an article is put up for review or delisted - we're trying to improve the encyclopedia, so all our actions should be designed to do that. Giving the primary author a chance to address the concerns raised in any review will only benefit the quality of the encyclopedia, and as noted with the FAR process, it is a courteous thing to do. I will be extremely disappointed if one of the three articles I assisted in raising to GA is listed for review without being told. Daniel 05:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And if a reviewer can't be stuffed looking up the primary author and contacting them with their concerns, then they probably shouldn't be reviewing articles. May sound harsh, but if this article level is going to maintain credibility, it needs to be i) a high-quality process with high-quality, detailed assessments; and ii) a process designed to improve articles, which is best achieved by raising the issues with the primary author. Daniel 05:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you watchlist those three articles? I think if editors care so much to maintain an article they've taken to GA, they'd have it watchlisted. Otherwise, how do you maintain it? Lara❤Love 14:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Updating the oldid

When we pass an article, are we supposed to overwrite the oldid from when it originally passed GAN, or are we supposed to set up a new GAR entry in the article history? Epbr123 21:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Set up as new entry, treating the sweep as GAR. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Crap, just seen this. I read the instructions as over-writing the oldid in the existing GA template... I'd better go and fix the two articles I've just passed :P EyeSerene^TALK 11:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're allowed to overwrite the oldid in the GA template, but not the article history. Although, it does make more sense to set up a new article history rather than updating the GA template. Epbr123 11:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. I haven't done any yet that have the article history template, but it does make more sense now. I don't need to fix anything after all, although maybe I will go back and do as you suggest re a new article history. Thanks for the clarification! EyeSerene^TALK 11:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(←) If you want to build a new article history for articles that use the ga template, you can do that. It's not something we want to encourage everyone to attempt because of the frequency in errors, which is a pain for Gimmetrow and SandyGeorgia. Gimmebot can do it, but it only runs upon request. I think those participating in sweeps are experienced enough to successfully build AHs, but please do check for errors when you're done. Some will show in the template itself, others won't, so check th bottom of the page for a red category. Lara❤Love 11:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've replaced the GA template with the ArticleHistory template on Talk:Jonathon Band - as it's the first time I've used the ArticleHistory template I'd appreciate it if someone could look over what I've done... Thanks! EyeSerene^TALK 12:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. :) Lara❤Love 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lara as always! EyeSerene^TALK 16:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Do A-class articles need to be reassessed?

The heading says it all really: the next article on my list passed GA in August 07, then A-class in September. It easily passes the GA reassessment, but as it's now A-class, isn't this redundant? EyeSerene^TALK 13:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I'd say not for any that achieved A-class in the last few months. Check the history. If there have been significant changes since it was reviewed as A-class, then review it, because it could have lost that quality. Lara❤Love 13:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a tough question, to be honest. What I did was scanning through it and if there's no major error, I'll pass it. That's how I assessed Mathematics. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Should A-class articles be listed at GA at all? My initial thought was that this was down to someone not updating the templates, in which case it's easily fixed. EyeSerene^TALK 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A-class is a project-specific rating for WP 1.0. It's for the technical articles and signifies that they have been reviewed by an expert. A-class articles that are also GAs should remain on the GA list. If you're not an expert in the subject, such articles need to be held for someone who is. Lara❤Love 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that... it's not defined that way on any of the Quality Scales I've seen (eg here). It does help clarify the ratings though. Thank you Lara (I think I'll just include that in my sig, it'll save typing it all the time :P ) EyeSerene^TALK 17:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, no problem. In the link you gave it states: "Reserved for articles that have received A-Class status after review by the project. Such articles are expected to largely meet the featured article criteria, and must be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written; however, they may require some further copyediting." In that, review by the project refers to the wikiproject over that particular article; those most familiar with the subject matter. It also states that A-class articles are generally only a copy-edit away from FA. Once copy-edited, they should be run through FA. If promoted, then they are removed from GA. Lara❤Love 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, it is implied that, at that stage, content is reviewed by specialists. I hadn't realised though that it was aimed at 1.0 as a sort of 'certified accurate' seal of approval. Makes more sense now though ;) ThanksLara^{YOU THOUGHT I WASN'T SERIOUS} 18:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha! That's comedic gold! Good times. Glad to be of service. :) Lara❤Love 20:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha! I have already delisted at least one A-class article (National_Comics_Publications_v._Fawcett_Publications), one of the reasons was a dispute regarding copyright of one of the images. I don't think the A-rating should be like a bulletproof vest for GA articles. Ruslik 05:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had to delist a couple of A's. Like with GA, not all A-ratings are awarded by experienced reviewers. Epbr123 08:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that if a GA has been rated as an A-class (rightfully so), it should also remain listed as a GA. Lara❤Love 15:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Good judgement, Ruslik. To everyone: Just be careful with the TONE when you announce your delistment. Make it sound nice and don't offend anyone or any WikiProject. God knows how long when another WikiProject wishes to boycott GA system for delisting their favourite articles -.- OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

{{ArticleHistory}}

Make sure you've read the instructions completely on how to build and update article history before attempting to do so. Also, before you save changes, preview and scroll to the bottom of the page. If you see a red category, you've made a mistake. Fix the mistake before saving. If you can't figure out what's causing the error, leave a message on my talk page or ask on the AH talk page. Daily maintenance is required to the template because of all the errors made relating to GA. This needs to be corrected. Lara❤Love 18:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

COI

What's the feeling regarding reassesing an article for this sweep that I originally reviewed and passed at GAN? Would this be considered COI? Personally I would be happier passing such articles over to another reviewer (especially as I often copyedit etc during a GA review), but I'd like to know what others think... EyeSerene^TALK 22:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Na, don't think that really is COI. You were the reviewer, not one of main contributor. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already stumbled across one or two articles that I reviewed at GAN, and it was actually beneficial since I knew the quality of the article at the time and could compare the current condition to when I passed it. However, if you believe that it is a conflict of interest for you, you can have somebody else review the article. --Nehrams2020 23:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. My main concern was that, having very likely copyedited as part of the original GA review, would that then put me in the 'contributor' category for the sweep? If it's not a problem though I'll just plough on ;) EyeSerene^TALK 11:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Recruitment time

As you can see, I have posted messages on community portal as well as GA newsletter about recruiting new members to the Sweeps. I feel that this is necessary because after 4 months of sweeping, we managed to complete 12.6%. At this pace, it will take an additional 2.6 years to complete the sweep. At the same period of time (from August to now), over 300 articles are added to the GA list. If we don't review more, we will never catch up the growth of GA.

If you know editors who is strong in reviewing as well as firm understanding in all GA processes, please nominate them by dropping a list of names here. There's no limit on how many you can invite.

Thanks for taking your time reading this, and happy sweeping! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

only invited people???

• Have never seen that elsewhere on Wikipedia, except in Arbcom stuff, and in esperanza... Ling.Nut (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, this is the new esperanza.</sacrasm>Only in the initial phrase. We want to make sure that up to a particular date (i.e August 26, 2007), all the articles have been reviewed by experienced reviewers. We're always open let more reviewers to join in (like VanTucky) if they request us. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Did VanTucky make such a request? I don't see it here... wondering whatthe connection is... anyhow, I guess you didn't catch the point of the reference to Esperanza — the clubbishness and insiders-only practices led to an MfD. That's not a threat of MfD; that's an example of the dim view which folks tend to take on an insiders-only atmosphere. Anyhow, good luck. Cheers. Ling.Nut (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

He asked on my talk page, as per the instruction. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) OK. Sorry I bothered you. I had just never seen such exclusionism before except in the two examples I named (one of which was wholly legitimate). Cheers, carry on, etc etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Esperanza just a social club? Lara_Love ^Talk 04:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Yeah, that's all they were. But they had some sort of leadership group who made some sort of leadership decisions via IRC (closed door; not open to public). According to my understanding, this was one of the two main reasons they were MfD'd, the other simply being that much (but not all) of what went on there was simply extraneous to the task of writing an encyclopedia. I'm just.. a little.. uneasy with "invitation only" as a modus operandi on Wikipedia, except in the case of ArbCom. In that case some privacy is a neccessary evil 'cause they deal with editor privacy issues etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Invitation only isn't on ArbCom alone. Adminship, the Bureaucrats, and other positions of responsibility in Wikimedia projects require approval from others to join. The fact is, there are some duties that require a certain level of predetermined expertise from participants to function properly. This doesn't make them prejudicial in the way that Britannica is prejudicial about contributors or some kind of secret club. It's about the merits of your contributions. Users are judged on the merits of their contributions here 24/7, it's how wiki communities function. That said, you seem to be blurring the lines between secret and invitation only in your comments. This is not secret, and I would refuse to participate in any Durova-style nonsense for GA. All actions are taken on-wiki, and by necessity involve people who are not sweeps reviewers. Also, this isn't necessarily a permanent set up. Things might change to a degree where it is okay to let any regular GA reviewer participate. VanTucky ^talk 05:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear at all. I wasn't really talking about secrecy (though I see I have muddled things up 'til it looked that way). I was thinking (but not saying, unfortunately) that there is not and should not be a hierarchy of "in" editors and "out" editors in Wikipedia... but go ahead, carry on, I am just babbling. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

GA category reorganisation

Is it just me, or is anyone else finding it a bit of a nightmare that the two lists we are using (the GA sweep list and the current GA page) are no longer in synch? By which I mean, articles are not in the same categories any more :P EyeSerene^TALK 21:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea is to use this diff rather than the current GA page. Does that help? Geometry guy 12:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have been clearer, sorry. On the sweep list (the diff you give above), articles are categorised a certain way. However, those that are still on the current GA list are often categorised a different way. The specific example that's giving me trouble are TV programmes, which on the diff come under a single category (Social sciences and society -> Media -> Television and Radio shows and series) with all articles in the one place. On the current page they have been split into more than one category, which makes it awkward when delisting an article since I have to look for it in more than one place. It also took me a while to realise that things had been rearranged this way, causing some confusion while I wondered if I'd just spent a couple of hours reviewing an article that I needn't have, since I couldn't find it on the current page. It's no big deal though, I just felt like a whinge ;) EyeSerene^TALK 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Articlehistory errors

ah, ha, there's a sweep on, which explains the increase in GA {{articlehistory}} errors. Please remind reviewers that

1. instructions are at Template:Articlehistory
2. they can scroll to the bottom of the article talk page to see if the red articlehistory error category is lit when they finish, and
3. fixing an incorrect articlehistory can be very time consuming, particularly if a step was left out (like an old peer review); having GimmeBot do it correctly the first time is preferred. If reviewers don't know how to build articlehistory, they should just use the old GA templates rather than leave ah errors. (For example, it took me ten minutes to manually fix Talk:Quark, while GimmeBot could have converted all the templates in a second.)

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, this is mostly my fault. I was converting FAC, GA and PR templates into ArticleHistory. A lot of the old templates were missing oldids, links and/or dates—I'd assumed it was best to leave these blank. So... the easiest thing to do is simply add a new GA template box and leave it to GimmeBot to compile ArticleHistory? --jwanders^Talk 20:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, not mostly your fault; there have been others :-) If you don't have Dr pda (talk · contribs)'s articlehistory script, building an ah when there are lots of templates is hard, and it's best to either 1) get his script, or 2) just leave a template and let GimmeBot do the ah. On a couple of yours, the issues were easily resolved; you only left off the date, which is easily gotten by clicking on the oldid once you've added it to the ah. The real reason I posted here was only to ask that reviewers be reminded to scroll to the bottom of the article talk page when done; if there's an ah error, you'll see a red error cat. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a script?? It takes me ages to build an article AH, especially from scratch... heading there right now. Oh, whilst we're on the topic, can I ask: does it make any difference whether or not the time is included along with the date when filling in the actionNdate field? Obviously it only displays DD-MM-YY, but I've seen both variations. EyeSerene^TALK 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr pda/articlehistory.js, and I think it's OK to leave off the time (I usually pull full info from Dr pda, so I'm not sure). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you fill in the time with the date, then you don't need to fill in the oldid (which is the most painful and time-consuming bit), because GimmeBot can work it out from the date and time. For new events the date and time are easy to add using ~~~~~ (five tildes). As Sandy says, you can also use the old templates: GimmeBot will convert these to article history events later. Also, for GANs, action-links are not required, which also saves time. For GARs, {{GAR/AH}} may be of help (if you can remember the syntax). Geometry guy 12:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Geometryguy is referring to the older GA templates (if you add time and date stamp, you don't need oldid, as GimmeBot can pull them from Dr pda when he converts to articlehistory). But if you're doing the ah, GimmeBot isn't likely to come after you, and leaving off the date (as several are doing) creates an error, while leaving off the oldid invalidates the idea that you can easily link to the passed or failed version in ah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It's not a huge chore to build the AH from scratch, but I'll certainly try the script next time I do an AH. I'm slightly reluctant in case it breaks my other scripts (my monobook page is fairly full as it is...) we'll see though ;) EyeSerene^TALK 09:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To boldly delist where no one has delisted before

I regularly encounter a process known as "bold delisting" which I didn't think was documented anywhere. Now I see where it comes from: here.

Bold delisting is an extremely unhelpful concept. First, it wins GA no friends. Second, it creates a false dichotomy that one either "boldly delists" or one takes an article to GAR. This is entirely contrary to the delisting guidelines. There is absolutely no reason that I can see why GA Sweeps should follow a different process to the delisting guidelines for delisting articles. That is, you leave a message on the talk page first, wait, and then delist if there is no response or no improvements are made. With these old GAs, no one may be watching the page, but there really is no harm in waiting to see, and if there is a really enthusiastic editor, then it might result in saving the article instead of crushing said editor's enthusiasm (win-win vs lose-lose).

Summary delisting without following the delisting guidelines (or in the worst case, what I call drive-by delisting) is sanctioned by WP:IAR. If anyone needs more authority than WP:IAR to have the courage to do this, then they probably shouldn't be doing it. Calling it "bold delisting" is just such a crutch. It isn't bold, it is impolite. Geometry guy 12:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, this "BoldDelisting" is mostly used for articles which passed GA before the requirements for inline citations were added, and thus have no or very few references. Many of these articles that I've seen have a talk page entry from September 2006 notifying them of the change to the criteria and that the page will need to be delisted unless references are added. The GA talk page template says "If [this article] no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment", so I'm not sure how the sweep delist is a different process.--jwanders^Talk 18:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the article has a notice from September 2006 and nothing has happened since then, then it is probably safe to assume that no further notification is needed! However, the GA requirements for inline citation have changed since September 2006 to line them up better with WP:V: see WP:WIAGA and its talk page. Also "you can delist it" means "in accordance with the delisting guidelines". Probably it would be a good idea to add a wikilink to the GA template to clarify this. Geometry guy 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Which delisting guidelines are you referring to? As I read them, those at WP:GAR say that an article can be delisted by a single editor and need only go through reassessment if there's disagreement. --jwanders^Talk 18:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are the ones I'm referring to, and I wikilink them above. An article can indeed be delisted by a single editor, and this is to be strongly encouraged, but it should be done with care and courtesy, not boldly. Geometry guy 18:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, good. :-) I don't really care for the term "BoldDelist" either, but find it's only really used as the name of the template we put as a talk page entry. The template text itself is much more courteous than the name implies.--jwanders^Talk 19:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. My first action on this issue (this morning UTC) was to move {{GABoldDelist}} to {{GASweepsDelist}}). The template is indeed quite polite. I will soon update the sweeps page to reflect this politeness :-) Geometry guy 19:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this Gguy - personally I don't like the term "Bold delist" and have never used it; I'm happy to see it discouraged. I think the concept came about in part because Delist decisions have been challenged with "what gives you the right to unilaterally delist my article?", and the idea was to underline the role WP:BOLD plays in GA reviewing. However, we should be as tactful as possible when deciding on the worth of someone's hard work: "Reluctant delist" would be more appropriate IMO ;) EyeSerene^TALK 09:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I finally got round to doing this! I also gave the page a bit of a copyedit. Feel free to check over what I did and fix any problems. Geometry guy 18:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to cover this "bold delist" concept on our next GA newsletter because many people got it all wrong. (Just look at the recent drama at WP:GAR) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good idea. I'm willing to write it (per your request on my talk page) but I am also more than happy for one of my trusty handsocks, such as DHMO (per Dr.Cash's talk page), to write it :-) Geometry guy 19:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

DMHO? No way, unless you want him to stir up more drama. I don't believe he's a suitable candidate to write this article because he caused quite a lot of drama already and I anticipated drama would occur after this article. Seriously, we had enough drama in GA department for March, don't want to extend that to April. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors can change, and I think DHMO has changed for the better from the GA perspective; also, newsletter articles are edited, so it isn't an open forum, and Dr. Cash does a good job. Anyway, I take your point that this is a delicate matter, so we need someone without baggage to write it. Again, I'm willing to do it, but another of my trusty self-confessed handsocks is EyeSerene, who has made valuable contributions here. I expect he could write a great article on individual delists. Geometry guy 20:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Having been promoted to one of Gguy's handsocks I can hardly disagree (for some reason when I picture Gguy, Zaphod Beeblebrox keeps coming to mind). I'm prepared to have a go, if no-one better comes to mind... and if you chaps don't mind exercising your red pens! EyeSerene^TALK 21:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

From the original radio/TV series/books I hope, not the recent film :-) Geometry guy 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

<contempt>Recent film?</contempt> EyeSerene^TALK 18:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article 'rescue' award proposal

I'm very conscious that as part of this sweep we're often turning up unannounced on a talk page with instructions to fix an article or else, and landing editors with an unexpected workload from an unrequested review. Despite this I've come across many editors who, regardless of the inconvenience and without a word of protest, have thrown themselves into the task and saved their article from delisting.

We already have a GA contributor award at {{User Good Article}} that can be awarded to editors for bringing an article to GA status, so how about one specifically intended for editors who rescue an article from potential delisting? I think this would be a nice gesture, and especially relevant to this WikiProject. Any thoughts? EyeSerene^TALK 12:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a "Rescue From Deletion Award" barnstar which is for editors who rescue a stub or an article from deletion with excellent writing. How about making one ourselves? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Golden Wiki could be a possibility, because it's shiny!

I don't see why not. I'd thought a userbox rather than a barnstar, just so it's similar to the award we use already, but I'd be happy to go with either. EyeSerene^TALK 18:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic idea! Geometry guy 19:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning to dish out awards (no, not barnstars) for sweep team. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweeps team awards are great, but we really need awards for regular article editors who respond to a sweeps review. Please do not forget them. Geometry guy 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Shiny is good ;) For editors, how about something like:

This user saved ARTICLE from being delisted as a good article.

(edit link)

I tried to get the 'First Aid' idea in with the second cross; the colours don't quite match but I was limited to what's on commons :P EyeSerene^TALK 21:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A._K._Fazlul_Huq

Can someone take a look at this please. It was promoted within five minutes of listing and the article looks pretty fishy. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Although the review isn't detailed, it looks like a good-faith pass to me. Having said that, the article lead isn't really WP:LEAD compliant, there's some instances of possible editor commentary in there, and the article is under-referenced in places. Enough to take to WP:GAR? EyeSerene^TALK 13:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC archives

Ling.Nut (talk · contribs) suggested I raise this, so here I am. WP:GVF states that GA has the same standards as FA on reliable sources and verifiability. Recently, Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) has begun checking (amazingly) sources on every FAC vis-a-vis WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks to her work, the monthly FAC archives can be checked for GAs that were passed with sourcing issues and may need a GA review. For example, one-third of the 42 FACs currently in the April FAC archive are GAs with unresolved sourcing issues (as of the time of archiving the FAC—they may have improved since FAC closing).

1. Talk:1995 Japanese Grand Prix
2. Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
3. Talk:Pierce Brosnan
4. Talk:The Contest
5. Talk:The Chronic
6. Talk:Virginia
7. Talk:Marshall Field and Company Building
8. Talk:SummerSlam (2007)
9. Talk:S Club
10. Talk:Jack Kemp
11. Talk:Triple H
12. Talk:Bill Gates
13. Talk:The Muppets' Wizard of Oz
14. Talk:Tenacious D

The suggestion is that the Sweeps Project might review the FAC archives each month, since there is a record there of the work Ealdgyth has done on checking sources, and that doing so may help raise awareness of the importance of WP:V policy throughout Wiki. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but it would be nice to have a way of identifying the articles involved: I expect there could be an automatic way to identify GAs which fail FAC and bring them to the attention of the Sweeps Project. Note that WP:GVF does state that "Featured articles are usually subject to greater scrutiny in regard to factual accuracy and verifiability. In particular the inline citation requirements are stricter." However, I strongly imagine that in most of the cases above, the articles would fail the GA criteria as well as the FA ones. I think Sweeps can help. Geometry guy 19:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone just has to manually run through the monthly FAC archive (usually about 60 articles), pick out the ones that failed on reliable sources, and then see if they're GA. It took me about 10 minutes to generate the list above; it's not that bad if someone just does it, and ten minutes of time rewards GA with a list of articles that may not be at standard. If you do this for only a few months, I suspect you'll find what I already know (they usually come from the same group of GA reviewers, or better stated, they rarely come from certain reviewers), and those reviewers will be motivated to look at sources more carefully. I suspect that if you do this for only a couple of months, it may raise the level of reviews, hence, raise the prestige and respect accorded to GA :-) Since Ealdgyth has already done the work for us, it's a freebie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GA symbol on article page

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Transport: Roads

Did anyone notice that there's an awfully large number of articles about roads? And I'm not talking about the major significant ones, like interstate highways or things like Route 66 (which actually isn't a GA, BTW). There's just a lot of articles about some relatively minor and borderline significant state routes and other minor roads. I suspect this might have something to do with the fact that the transport section is probably one of the more active sections at WP:GAN -- there's currently 22 articles there up for review, most of them roads (a high percentage are of new york state routes).

Due to this high amount of traffic here, I wonder how many of these actually get a full, decent review, and how many actually meet all six of the GA criteria. I recently found two that were rather skimpy on content. It might be a good idea to focus some sweeps energy in this direction. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Sweeps?

Seeing as how the sweeps process is currently progressing at a snail's pace, and at the present rate we'll probably get done sometime in 2012 (just in time for the Mayan end of the world? ;-), I have an idea which might help sweeps go a little faster. Rather than having people sweep specific categories on their own, why not have a 'category of the month' or 'category of the fortnight'. We'll put up a list of the current category that we're sweeping in a given month, and all sweepers can concentrate on sweeping all the GAs in that particular category. If it takes us all month to do it, fine. If it takes us less than a month to sweep, then we can move on to another category.

If sweepers wanted to go through articles outside the given category, that would still be fine, but we should concentrate our efforts on one category at a time.

We might also want to have a criterion that articles promoted to GA within the last 6 months can be skipped over, to further help speed things along in a given category.

Any thoughts? Dr. Cash (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any subcategory of science or tech in mind? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I know having a deadline would help to motivate me, given that I'm now sweeping articles outside my area of interest (or will be, once I'm done with my copyedit backlog and back on the job) EyeSerene^talk 18:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That would probably work, and it would be great to do different topic articles after doing so many of the same articles. However, for the recent 6 months you mentioned, we're already going off the stabilized version of August 26, 2007. Once a section is chosen, I'll send a message out to all current sweepers (is that what we're called?), along with a report on our progress so far. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of starting with the science/tech articles. My suggestion would be to begin with either 'biology & medicine' (186 articles) or 'physics & astronomy' (97 articles). It might be better to start with the physics articles, since theres fewer in that category. It would help us to get up to speed and gauge how quickly this will happen before we crack a really big category like bio/med. Ultimately, we could always split categories up into one or more sub-categories, too. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion... perhaps when you all make your sweeps you can actually have the courtesy to leave a message on the talk page of the significant contributor, which is actually the respectful thing to do. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Notification for relevant projects and contributors

Currently, relevant projects and contributors do not have to be notified about the sweeps, according to the guidelines. I think it would make sense if such notification was part of the process, so users are invited to maintain the article's good quality and prevent its delisting. – Ilse@ 12:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I always alert all of the WikiProjects on the article's talk page and use this tool to find the main contributors to the article. Sending all of these groups messages usually assists in getting more people to work on addressing the issues I may raise. I'd definitely recommend it to any reviewers. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not everybody is as thorough as Nehrams2020. – Ilse@ 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sweeps reviews on subpages

The introduction of review subpages has enabled GA actions to be more accountable by providing a permanent link to the review. The same principle applies to reassessment activities such as Sweeps. To start a subpage for a sweeps review of an article, add {{subst:GAR}} to the top of the article talk page and save, then follow the first bold link ("individual reassessment") to create the subpage for the review. The rest of the process is just like a GAN review. Of course this doesn't need to be done for articles which meet the criteria.

Thanks, Geometry guy 15:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to post a message on the Talk page (without creating a review page) if the article meets GA criteria and is kept without hold, because an update of oldid is difficult to notice. In July I actually created separate review pages for a number articles that I passed, but now I think that the talk page messages are enough. In addition, in case of Keep it may be wise still to update ArticleHistory creating a new entry—it will increase visibility of Sweeps. Ruslik (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Help requested

Would anyone be prepared to take over the Sweeps Review of Chocolate Hills that I opened yesterday and put on hold? One editor has come out of the blocks accusing me of harassment in opening the review, and laziness in not fixing the issues myself. I'm afraid that kind of language is only likely to escalate if I have to fail the article at the end of the hold period, so I don't want to be further accused of having delisted it because of some perceived antipathy between me and the editor in question rather than on the merits of the article itself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I will review the article tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing a Reviewer from GA Sweeps

What is the procedure for removing a reviewer from GA Sweeps? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What reasoning is there to remove someone from the GA sweeps? Seddσn ^talk 04:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look through this article's recent history you'll see that my question was prompted by the threats issued by one administrator. And that drawing attention to those threats is now interpreted as a personal attack. Wikimadness. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

MF, there's a difference between what you just said (which is perfectly fine and civil), and what was said before (which was not). I suspect you know that. Although you might want to consider not always saying "admin", as if the issue is has something to do with adminship. This is an issue between editors. Gimmetrow 05:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, it is impossible to distinguish the two. Although people may wish that you can act as an admin, and that you can separately act as an editor, that is psychologically impossible. Its quite fair that those who claim Malleus has a CoI equally have a CoI and probably shouldn't be making such claims, especially in regards to one of the most highly respected GA reviewers. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, this is another Malleus/Gimmetrow thing. Now I get it. The encyclopedia and everyone else involved with it fades to black, since it and they are obviously unimportant. We now return you to your regularly scheduled grenade throwing contest. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The question which is being studiously ignored here is whether it is appropriate for Gimmetrow to make the kind of threats that appear to be becoming his trademark. To whit, the removal of an editor from the GA prpject. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Neither Gimmetrow nor anyone else, admin or not, has the authority to remove anyone from GA sweeps. I suggest a step back and a count to ten. It's literally laughable that one would have Malleus' comments redacted as a violation of NPA after they've threatened an action they have no right whatsoever to make. There was nothing against policy in the redacted post, and if anymore inappropriate threats or warnings are thrown his way, there's going to be some serious time-wasting discussion. Malleus' is prolific in the GA project and has done extremely well as a sweeps reviewer. Sweeps reviewers are some of the project's best, and the sweeps are an important process for the project. Thus, when anyone has some issues with a sweeps reviewer, it would be best to have a little respect when dealing with those issues. لennavecia 16:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's say you and I were in conflict, and it was obvious to me that you disliked me and went out of your way to avoid me. When you nominate an article for GA, I remove the nomination immediately. You warn me not to and and I promise to avoid your talk page. You then nominate the article again, at which point I disrupt the nomination a different way. Would you have any problems with such actions? Assuming you did, and you questioned whether I had a conflict of interest, I then badmouth you around wikipedia, saying you just have a grudge and a whim and you are acting disgracefully to dare question my actions? And then my friends demand that you "respect my authority"? Would you have any problems with that at all? Gimmetrow 00:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, you are compounding your disgraceful behaviour by continuing with your self-delusion. You were guilty of destroying the article history of Brenda Song, for which you received a 3RR block. Since then you have taken it upon youself to act the injured party. Well, that just doesn't wash, and it doesn't excuse your subsequent abusive and dishonest behaviour. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but now you are the one behaving dishonestly and abusively. That just doesn't wash. Gimmetrow 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I've given you my opinion, and you've now given me yours. I'm prepared to drop this issue now if you are, but I'm also prepared to take it as far as is necessary to put an end to it if you're not. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, without condoning, condemning or otherwise commenting on Malleus' actions, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between having problems with a situation and making empty threats. Not even I would presume to have the authority to remove an active reviewer from this process, and I'm the one that got it started. You may recall a good number of months ago there was an issue with some shady review deals and a couple articles getting promoted that shouldn't have. There was discussion about removing an editor from the project for the behavior that brought the GA project into disrepute. The result of inquiries was that no one has the authority to remove an editor from a project, with the exception of banned users.

I also fail to see your name listed in the participants list of either WGA, GAPQ or GAPQ/S, which means this threat was made not as a member of the project, but as an administrator. In my view, that's an abuse of status, because surely you are not under the impression that any editor may remove another from a project because of a dispute they are having with them. There seems to be little difference (speaking in action, not technicalities) between blocking an editor you are in dispute with, and removing said editor from a Wikiproject. No admin should take any action against an editor with whom they are in a dispute. Furthermore, this issue was a matter of a new nomination, listed at GAN, not a sweeps article. So any action taken against Malleus regarding the sweeps process (in which he's reviewed approximately 5% of the total +3,000 to be reviewed) would be punitive, not preventative.

Your displeasure with Malleus should have been taken to the appropriate noticeboard and presented to uninvolved administrators in a more detailed and neutral manner than it was above. Your threats and the redaction of Malleus' comment are not acceptable, and if you are not able to understand and acknowledge that, then there is a serious issue here. لennavecia 05:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your reply, and its lack of comment on the query posted, is noted. Gimmetrow 06:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And your inability to accept your own screw-up and abuse of position is noted. لennavecia 06:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So that it's clear for anyone reading this, this is the original comment from Gimmetrow that I replied to. Realize that your "query" is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Overshadowed by a much bigger issue. Your failure to properly deal with it has now become the issue of concern, because it's not only an abuse of your administrative position (which would probably be the bigger issue for some people), but your attempt to remove a prolific reviewer from sweeps and, from what I read, the GA project as a whole (which I find to be the bigger concern). And that you do not acknowledge that you were in no position to issue threats, you have no right at this point to demand anything from anyone here. لennavecia 06:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Realize that you had a chance to let it go, and you did not. Gimmetrow 06:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, honey. This is not mine to let go. I'm not one who has abused my position or made threats in a dispute. If you want this to leave this project and hit a noticeboard, go for it or give me the word. I think for the matter of minimizing drama and saving time, it would be best to resolve the issue here. Something best accomplished by admitting you erred, making the necessary amends, and then we can move forward on resolving the dispute. لennavecia 06:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, "honey"? You're creating the drama here; you're the one escalating matters. Your choice, not mine. Gimmetrow 07:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you honey. That was condescending. I'm off to bed now, but I've requested the relevant diffs. How about taking some time away and then tomorrow, perhaps you'll be able to recognize how some of your actions were not appropriate. Hopefully then you'll be able to acknowledge that, and we can work cooperatively together to resolve this. I think that is the best course of action. لennavecia 07:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have acknowledged as much by removing my statements. However, MF has not admitted or acknowledged that any of MF's actions were inappropriate, except perhaps by MF being "prepared to drop the issue". Not a full resolution, but I have very little reason to interact with MF, and if MF stayed away from me and articles I'm involved in, it would be enough of a resolution. And yet you intervened to aggravate matters - do you acknowledge your errors? Gimmetrow 07:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(<--) My err? This is ridiculous. In addition to abusing your position as an administrator, attempting to remove one of the more prolific editors from the GA project and, more specifically, GA sweeps; and filing a report, making false claims of personal attacks; you're also showing ownership issues over the article in question, and a nasty habit of inappropriate reverts. If Malleus is fine to drop things where they are, then against better judgment, I'll back away from this dispute, providing that he's not ending his status as a reviewer. But you would do be best not to repeat these shameful actions in the future. لennavecia 07:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is really unfortunate to read all of this, and the events leading up to it. Looking at our current progress with sweeps, and having to deal with side problems such as these, I'm starting to wonder if we will ever finish. I'm not going to support either side since I respect both editors, but it's time to let it go, and continue with improving the project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Gimmetrow - it was pointed out above that no one can remove a reviewer from the process. Immediately, that should have told you that any discourse here would not lead to the outcome that you desire. Thus, the only one who is creating drama is you by continuing on the same topic instead of 1. taking it to another forum, or 2. pushing for a system that could remove users from the sweeps. You have not done either, nor did you notify Malleus when you reported him to 3RR. These are very troubling actions. Please, think things through and try to follow the appropriate formats before pushing. Right now it just appears that you are bullying something through to the casual observer because you missed some key processes. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is my position: I have made it abundantly clear that it is my firm belief that Gimmetrow has acted disgracefully, dishonestly, has abused his position as administrator, and is prepared to invent whatever lies will allow him to display himself in a good light. It is also my view that Gimmetrow has shown himself unfit to be an administrator, and unwilling to communicate in any rational way. I note that he early on forbade me from posting on his talk page after I asked him to explain exactly why he had decided to issue me with vague warnings, not the action of a responsible administrator. If I had any faith in the integrity of the process I would now be preparing a case to demand that he be desysoped. However I have none, hence my statement to Gimmetrow that I am prepared to let this go if he now stops his vexatious behaviour. If, on the other hand, he continues with it, including his displays of ownership over certain articles, rewriting of article histories to suit his various versions of events, and accusing me of making personal attacks against him, then I am reluctantly prepared to take whatever action is necessary to bring his abuses to an end. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

GA community input requested

A proposal to make some changes to the way we review Good Article nominations is currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#GA review reform. All interested editors are invited to participate. EyeSerene^talk 11:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Hi, I'm new here and would like to get some procedures clarified before I jump in and start messing things up... the instructions at the sweeps page aren't quite doing it for me:

• If an article is obviously high-quality GA material with no revisions required, do I still need to create a new review page using the {{subst:GAR}} template? Do I put a message on the talk page saying that it's passed GAR sweeps? Is there a template for that?
• Am unclear how to "update to the current oldid"... is it just a matter of putting "Updating oldid per Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force" in the edit summary and a bot takes care of the rest? Or do I have to go in and change a number myself?
• On the Sweeps worklist page, what do I do with an article like Taurine, which has already been delisted? Simply remove it from the sweeps page?
• How about Protein, a former GA that was delisted, then brought back up to GA status? Remove it from the sweeps page? Anything else need to be done to the article history?

Thanks in advance for the help. Sasata (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

First thanks for signing up, I appreciate your efforts. Don't worry you won't mess anything up (well, at least too much). I would recommend still creating the GAR page, as it will document that the article was reviewed and people can refer to your thoughts on the quality of the article. Many of the articles that I have reviewed only needed a slight copyedit, and I passed them the same day (usually making the changes myself). We are currently using the GAR template now, so I revised the process. Sorry for any confusion. Please take another look and let me know if you still need further clarification. On the worklist page, if an article has been deleted/merged, already been listed at GAR, has become an FA, or has already been delsited, then remove it from the list and add it to the exempt total in your running total count. You may not have done anything, but by adding it to your count, it helps us to keep track of the total articles left to be reviewed. For Protein, I would list that as exempt, since the article was reviewed past the starting point of sweeps. Again, let me know if you need further clarification on any of these, and thanks again for helping out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I just delisted my first article Atlantic Herring, following the single instruction "In the case of a clear failure to meet the criteria, remove the article from WP:GA and leave a message on the review subpage, using {{subst:GASweepsDelist}} with a detailed list of issues below it."; I also updated the sweeps page and the running total page. But I feel like I'm missing something... do I transclude the review? Update the article history? Sasata (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too sure on the transcluding of the review. I usually just update the article history once it passes/fails. Perhaps someone who doesn't update the article history can assist you with this question. If you need help with formatting the article history, take a look at some of the articles I delisted. If you haven't worked with before make sure you preview a few times to make sure everything worked okay. Let me know if you have any further questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I read through the article history template instructions (haven't done this procedure before), using a couple of your own examples as models, and I think I successfully changed the article history (i.e. no red Article history error at the bottom). I'm just wondering why the GAR was named GA1 (instead of say, GAR) - does this mean that the original GA review is overwritten and not accessible? Anyways, I' d appreciate it if someone could have a look and see if the article history looks for Atlantic Herring looks ok. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I think the GA1 naming covers all GANs/GARs. Whenever the {{subst:GAR}} is used it automatically creates a new page and doesn't erase the prior one(s). For example, if someone is to re-review that article, the next GAR will be GA2. These sequential orders will help to prevent deleting of prior reviews and keep track of total reviews. Good job with the article history. I made multiple errors on it when I first started using it, and still do every once in a while. Thank goodness for the preview button. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 09:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

For me, regardless of whether a pass, delist, or GAR, I always transclude it to the page. For GAR, I remove the transclusion but link it via ArticleHistory once the discussion is over. OH yeah, there are some nice default templates that you can use (it's covered in here). You can add your personal comments beneath it to make it more specific. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

List in order of last check

The ones marked as unreviewed on the check page I have listed in a rough order of time since last activity on the GA front, though no prizes for accuracy or completeness. You can find it User:Jarry1250/GA - top of the list = oldest. I thought it might be useful for prioritisation. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of doing something like this, since a lot of the earlier ones may have more issues with referencing and MOS guidelines. Good work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Shout if you need it updating (though if you'll want it updated more than once a week, let me know and with quite a bit of work I'll get you a version that automatically updates itself). - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 07:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and [1] might interest you also. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 07:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

An updated cleanup listing can be seen here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

list of sweeps articles in chronological order?

I think what would help this sweeps process is if we could compile a list of all GAs that were promoted more than one year ago, with the date of their promotion on the page. That way, we could prioritize sweeps by looking at the older articles first. Perhaps this could be done by a bot, which might be run every month? Dr. Cash (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The section above gives the most easily available list. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 14:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What citations are required

I quote from Talk:Sophocles/GA1, where a reviewer claimed that "Oedipus Rex is set in Thebes" would require citation from a secondary source, whereas the sentence itself cites a primary source for an uncontroversial claim. (I trim slightly so as not to involve the reviewer; I think it an honest mistake, now corrected.)

Here is what is said about referencing.

b) it 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, and contentious material relating to living persons;

How is it surprising that a play "Oedipus the King" about the mythical king of Thebes is set in Thebes? Is it a published opinion? Counter-intuitive or controversial? Maybe it's a statistic. Please go and read the criteria and then come back with requirements that are in line with them. --Peter cohen (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec, sorry) We have a general problem with overcitation. I've seen articles with many hundreds of citations, often of the most trivial and obvious matters. The GA criteria actually get it right -- which surprised me, frankly, since a common trend I see is a demand for citation not just of "published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements" but of very basic facts, that can be established by simple observation. Be careful, everyone: a "fundamentalist" attitude on things like "no original research" can completely shut down one's ability to write good prose. Creating a plot summary, or noting that Oedipus Tyrannus is indeed set in Thebes, needs no citation; part of "assuming good faith" is presuming that our editors aren't pulling this stuff out of their back ends. I am reminded of a now-departed editor who passionately insisted that stating that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was in C minor was original research, since they key was not in the title, and determining it required looking at the score (or citing someone else who had, for example, put the key on a CD case). Citation is fine -- but too much can be silly and can make an article hard to read. Antandrus (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope these comments will be helpful to other reviewers. Excess citations do have a cost in readability, and they are not required by WP:NOR, WP:V, or WP:WIAGA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Inari (mythology)

What to do when the edits needed are minor, but the chief editor is missing for a long time? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If the edits needed are uncontroversial just go ahead and make them. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweeps incentives

Do people keep that the incentive system for the sweeps is effective? I was thinking of whether it might be useful at WP:FAR and commented at WT:FAR. I know a lot of people at FA don't like it and think it promotes driveby reviews, but in the case of FAR, I don't think it could bring down the average level of detail. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably harmful, on the whole; there are too many cursory and drive-by reassessments, and an incentive to do many articles probably contributes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Which "cursory and drive-by reassessments" do you have in mind, or was that just a knee-jerk reaction? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Talk:Sophocles/GA1
• Talk:Special relativity/GA1
• And, beneath all, Talk:Mathematics/GA1, in its original two-sentence state.

If I had only meant to point out an incentive to carelessness, without examples, I would have said so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I quite like that Mathematics article. I'll have a good read through later and maybe chip in at the GA reassessment. Naturally I agree with you that the original review was woefully inadequate. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the incentive scheme has made the slightest difference. Certainly hasn't to me anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't expect it to. The perverse incentive applies to those who do not know our guidelines, the English language, or the subject of the articles, and reassess for the glory of being the Decider and the honor of a badge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why anyone would review articles for an incentive is beyond me. For gosh sakes, you can't even put it on your CV! Dabomb87 (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I won't be the only one breathing a big sigh of relief when sweeps is finally finished, hopefully in a month or two. No non-cash incentive would ever induce me to do that again. I wonder if Lara really knew the scale of the task when she set up the project? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I cautioned YellowMonkey not to stuff beans[2] but I guess Pandora's box has been opened. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Cash would have worked very well. I would have kicked all the Sweepers out and reviewed them myself! Despite some reviews that aren't always the most helpful, many articles have been improved as a result of reviewers reassessing the articles. I can't imagine this process occurring again, especially with the current number of GAs. I don't really care for incentives for reviewing, I would just like to see the process done. That is why I invited hundreds of editors and WikiProjects to review articles (the projects to hopefully focus on their topics since they have a better understanding of their guidelines and the material) so that this process could be completed in a reasonable time. Only 500+ articles left, tell your friends! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A real milestone approaching

There are currently 455 GAs left to sweep, and GAN has a backlog of 401. If we can find the energy to stick with it, the sweeps queue should soon be shorter than the GAN queue. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed at the persistance of sweeps contributors in such a thankless task. Congratulations all, and please keep up the good work.  Skomorokh  21:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, will be very glad when it's over. Like Nehrams said above, I can't imagine anything like this ever happening again. Will it prove to have been worth all of the effort? Who knows. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe when the backlog drops below that of GAN, we can persuade other people to join in on the reviewing. And if this ever takes place again, it's going to have to be with the next generation of GA reviewers. I'll have to mysteriously disappear from Wikipedia if we start another one. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

However, if we are to maintain the quality of GAs, I believe that we will have to start the re-assessement of GAS listed between September 2007 & August 2008 quite soon. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

On further refection maybe GAs should be auto-delisted after two years. They can be re-submitted for assessment at GAN if editors are interested in them. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No way. You're missing the real point in the sweeps. We're doing it because primarily, many articles were promoted before an established criteria was in place. Of course, articles do deteriorate over time, but the main concern are those articles that got promoted simply because someone likes it (without checking for quality) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah that will be no consensus then :-) Just an idea! Jezhotwells (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No way x 2, to both ideas. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Northeast Philadelphia

I started this GAR in August, but the main editor asked for more time because he had a few other things going on. Since then, a few things have come up for me, and I won't really have much time for Wikipedia for a while. I don't just want to leave this up in the air, though. Since I had just left a couple of initial comments, would anyone be able to take over the reassessment for me? I would really appreciate it if someone could help out. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reassessed it and left recommendations. On hold until September 27. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement not important?

User:David Fuchs delisted WWE SmackDown! vs. RAW 2006 today with no hold period. To give some context, the professional wrestling project is very active and has addressed all concerns from articles reassessed during the sweeps. Since I was under the impression that GA reassessments should be about article improvement, I requested that he place the reassessment on hold for one week. The concerns could definitely be addressed in that period, but they are much more likely to occur if there is a hold period given than if it is simply delisted. His response, however, was that people are tired of the sweeps and he didn't feel like giving a hold period because he just wants to get it done. I am hoping that this is not a common sentiment, as I don't believe that it actually serves a useful purpose. Would it be possible to get someone else to take over (reopen) the reassessment or perform a new reassessment that is aimed at giving people a chance to fix the problems? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Given the events that have already happen, there are two ways forward. One is to fix the problems and resubmit the article to WP:GAN; the other is object to the delisting by taking the article to WP:GAR. If this is the assessment Talk:WWE SmackDown! vs. Raw 2006/GA1, you would need to convince the review that the article was GA-standard and that User:David Fuchs had delisted the article without due cause. I would suggest that resubmitting the article to WP:GAN after bringing the article up to standard (i.e. WP:WIAGA) is more likely to acheive GA-status: the choice is however yours to make. Pyrotec (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There is something not quite right here. One reviewer is stating that the article is not up to GA-standard and delists the article. The other editor says hey we have an active WP interested in that article, the article might not be up to standard, so put it On Hold and we will fix it (in one week or so ?); if you fail it we might not resubmit it to WP:GAN. Is that an accurate summary? Pyrotec (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If it's delisted, people may get back to it some day. With 4400 articles in the project's scope, though, it may take years. If it is put on hold, I believe that the project (like every other time during the sweeps) can get it up to GA standards within one week. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WWE is a pretty lively project, so I think, it's better to err on the side of incumbency unless the article is very low end; same for other robust groups. I haven't looked at it yet. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It was delisted on 1 November and one editor has made two edits on 7th Nov, fixing links; but none of the comments made by the reviewer have been addressed. On a quick scan, I happen to agree with one of the reviewer's comments, i.e. that "it's phrased almost like an advert". The appropriate way forward is to bring the article up to GA standard and renominate it at WP:GAN; or to object to the assessment at WP:GAR. To be somewhat harsh, trying to "blackmail" wikipedia, i.e. "leave it at GA and someone I'm sure will fix it, otherwise if it is not reopened no one will fix it", is not an appropriate way forward. One week has gone by and little or no progress has been made in fixing the article and no referal has yet been made to WP:GAR. That seems to indicate that there is not much desire, other than yourself, for this article to have GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it does a lot to prove my point. Every time an article was placed on hold, the project came together and fixed it quickly. This was delisted without a hold, and nobody has done anything. If it had been placed on hold, I have no doubt that the improvements would have been made by now. However, if the purpose of sweeps is speed rather than improving the quality of Wikipedia, so be it. Since this was not the reason I joined the sweeps, though, I will be withdrawing my participation once the articles I am currently reviewing have passed or failed. It's unfortunate to see so many areas of Wikipedia turning to bureaucracy and strict adherence to policy rather than common sense, but I guess it's a trend I'll just have to accept. Thanks anyway, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I think this discussion is rather silly. If your aim is really to improve the quality of wikipedia rather than collecting green dots for your project then you would already have fixed this article instead of moaning about the sweeps process. The purpose of the sweeps, as you well know, is to check that every GA promoted before August 2007 actually meets the current GA standard, not to improve anything per se. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not question my motivations or assume you know anything about "my aim". As I am neither a regular contributor to the article nor a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject, I have nothing to gain personally. I asked for the benefit of the doubt to prove that it could be done within a week. This reasonable request was denied due to sheer laziness. So be it, but such an action is harmful to the encyclopedia. That's a choice that David and other members of the Sweeps team are free to make, though. I am just chosing not to be a part of that mentality, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop and take the time to think a little more clearly. You complain when others assume to know your motivations, but are quite happy to assume the motivations of others ("sheer laziness"). Doesn't that strike you as a little inconsistent? The correct approach now, as you well know, is either to open a GAR if you believe that the article meets the GA criteria, or fix it and then resubmit at GAN if you agree it doesn't. Let's not waste any more time with this nonsense. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

David was a little more direct about revealing his motivations: "people would rather just be done with the bleepin' GA Sweeps already" "I simply can't wait around for everything to be addressed in a reassessment for every article I review". At any rate, I've moved on. Please feel free to do the same. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two issues here. One was the lack of hold time given for the delisting, which is generally a standard practice. In his delisting, David stated that the issues were too severe. When questioned about it, however, he stated "I think most people would rather just be done with the bleepin' GA Sweeps already" [3][4]. This is a troubling remark from a Sweeps reviewer. The point should not be just to get through it ASAP, but to properly review and allow time for fixing with possible. That said, he did also go on to say that he felt the article needed an entire rewrite to be a GA level article due to the 50% reliance on IGN. I'm not sure that is a failing of the GAC, but that's neither here nor there. The second issue is that, while I understand Gary's frustration at David's response, the appropriate response would be to show he was wrong by immediately sending it to WP:GAR to dispute the review, which would then put the article in the 1-2 week time frame to improvement that was being sought. Improve the article back to GA standards by the time the GAR is done, and it regains its GA status. Now that the individual GAR has been done, the only alternatives would be a new GAN or to dispute with a community GAR. Another editor can not generally go in and invalidate it unless it was a vandalistic or blatantly wrong review. David raised valid points, that should be addressed. I did a similar delisting as David's with Sailor Moon, for a similar reason of feeling the issues were too big[5] to fix in a week. One of the primarily editors from the SM project strongly objected and immediately started a GAR. 1 month later (so technically, I was write, but it left a lot of bitter feelings on both sides) and it was GA again.[6] This, to me, would be the better response than asking David to delete it or to walk away from Sweeps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A much simpler way, cutting through all of the bureacracy, would be to just give someone a chance when they make a reasonable request. What would the harm be? Anyhow, I am free to choose where I edit, and, as such, I am chosing to no longer offer my voluntary participation in a process that does not serve the purpose for which I believe it should be intended. Call it a hissyfit, call it taking a stand against a broken process, call it whatever you want. My final word on the matter is that I'm simply no longer interested. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with your logic, but not your motives. Your request is in effect: "there is a substandard Good Article that was failed at GAR. Let us lower the limits for WP:GAN, repromote the article to GA status, bypassing WP:GAN and community WP:GAR, and wait for someone to improve it"; and trample on a Sweeps reviewer who appears to have valid reasons for marking the article down as non-compliant. I failed several articles at sweeps, In the first noteworthy case I got effectively the same arguement that was made above and loads of abuse: the article has never been fixed. In the second case, an editor improved the article in the space of a couple of weeks and resubmitted it to WP:GAN. I started the review the same day and it is sitting there as a good GA. The only difference in the two cases was the will or the lack of will of a single editor to bring the article back up to GA standard. Your objections are obviously sincere: one way forward would be for you to actively encourage the WP to improve the article and to renominate it at WP:GAN; and for you to offer to carry out the review as soon as it appears at WP:GAN. Lowering the standards does not improve articles, it merely increases the number of substandard articles. Pyrotec (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your paraphrasing is quite inaccurate. I am saying that, were the reassessment reopened or taken over by another editor, or were a second individual reassessment performed, the article could easily be fixed within one week. If not, I agree that it should be delisted. As I said before, with no timeframe in place, the article is just one of 4400+ in the project's scope and may be fixed at some point in the future; were a timeframe in place, I have no doubt whatsoever that editors would come together and, on top of their regular editing, fix all concerns with this article within one week. Don't call it a "lack of will", because that shows that you don't understand a word of what I'm saying. The track record of the project should speak for itself: they respond well to hold periods, and a tiny bit of extra effort would have benefitted the encyclopedia. There is absolutely no "lowering the standards" involved—if anything, it would improve the standards of the reviewing process and the standards of Wikipedia articles. I can respect that you feel the need to defend someone who is working (arguably half-heartedly, but working nonetheless) on the Sweeps; I can't respect that you feel that policy trumps improvements to the encyclopedia. As I have also said before, move on with your lives. This show is over. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

GAR template

When the {{subst:GAR}} template is placed on the article talk page and the review page created a notice is placed on the article page: Currently undergoing a good article reassessment. However the phrase good article reassessment is wikilinked to [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Artice Name/x]] where x is the incremental number of the page. This appears to be a holdover from an earlier assessment process as {{subst:GAR}} creates a link to [[Talk:Article Name/GAx]]. Is it possible to get this fixed? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup

Reviewing this artcile, it seems to me that it would be better classified as a list article, as it mostly consists of one line paragraphs. I would appreciate the opinions of other reviewers on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)