Fort Towson

While reviewing Infinite, I stumbled upon a claim that is sourced from the singer's official website. My initial thought is that official or not, an artist website should not be trusted per WP:OR statements that borders WP:POV comments. However, the nominator disputed my claim of the source not being a WP:RS so I'm now here asking the community if official sites of artists (with many of them operated by their respective record companies) should be allowed in GA articles. In my opinion, its not a good source per WP:POV comments that the artist/record company stated to persuade potential buyers to their products. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 17:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what it is being used to reference. It would be authoritative for referencing track listings, credits about who is playing what instruments, and artist's statements. But it wouldn't be reliable for quoting anyone else but the artist. In your specific example above, the official site is cited twice. The first is attributing an opinion ("others, who noted he sounded") of someone other than the artist, so 'no' I would say this is not an reliable source for that. The second is a quote by Eminem from Eminem's website, so 'yes' I would say that is reliable. maclean (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Websites are almost always self-published (except for news-reporting orgs and other traditional publishers), so they generally should not be used for claims about third parties per WP:SPS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would rely on an official website for place and date of birth. Certain biographical details like parents names, siblings names, spouse, etc. might be acceptable from such a source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the nominator of the article. OK, so I see that an artist's statement can be sourced by an artists official website; So, in Eminem's statement he says that people encouraged him, saying he sounded like Nas AZ. And in the statement in the "Background and composition" I wrote that they encouraged him sounding like Nas and AZ, just not written the same as in the quotes, but 'based on Eminem's quote'... So, can't this be made an exception? :) Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 11:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is totally acceptable. Not sure why the reviewer thinks otherwise... Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 11:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather new at this, so apologies in advance if this is basic stuff. I'm running into some articles that I'd call difficult cases. They don't meet any of the criteria for a speedy fail, but they also require a ton of improvement before they meet the GA criteria requiring articles to be reasonably well-written and comply with basic MoS considerations. Words are missing. Words are misspelled. Grammatical errors are rife. Even if these things were corrected, the article would still be hard to understand because sentence structure and paragraph order are convoluted. Adding to the difficulty, the article is quite long.

So my question is: what's the appropriate way to handle cases like these? Addressing the problems individually would take hours, and what the article really needs is a thorough rewrite. My inclination is to help the nominator and get it listed, but I also think there's a good argument for giving general guidance about what needs to be done (the specifics would take too long to spell out) and then failing it while being as civil as possible. Then there's the option of giving general suggestions, then putting it on hold for a week and failing if the issues haven't been addressed.

Any opinions on this? Anybody have advice on how or where to draw the line between articles that should 1) be failed after making general suggestions on improvements, 2) be put on hold with general suggestions for improvement and 3) be given the full review treatment? Should one always use onhold before failing?--Batard0 (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A hold is not guaranteed, so if the article doesn't meet the criteria at the time you initially review it, you can detail some reasons why, say giving a sample of deficiencies, and then fail the nomination. My rule of thumb: if I don't think the nominator can bring the article up to standards in the standard seven days, I will review it and fail it. I use {{GAList}} and mark each item as appropriate, with some specific examples drawn from the first section or two of the article. Then I close out the review with a note to encourage them to work on the article and renominate it later. If I think that the nominator can fix the article in seven days, I grant them the hold period to do so. Imzadi 1979 → 12:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)'

(edit conflict)I know the type of articles you are talking about. You have pretty much summed up your options and what one you take will probably depends on how patient you are. First up though, you don't need to hold an article. If you think an article is a long way off passing you are entitled to fail it without holding, even if it does not meet the quickfail criteria. If you do this you should give enough advice on improvements so that the nominator can fix the article and nominate it again. Make sure you relate the fail to the criteria (i.e. if the prose is really bad you might want to leave examples of some poor prose and then indicate that the problem is widespread). If you decide to conduct a full review I would suggest making some minor suggestions first and see if the nominator responds. It can be frustrating to conduct a full review on these articles and then have no response.

Personally if the article needs a complete rewrite I would go with option 1. You will invest a lot of time if you go with one of the other options, but it is up to you. AIRcorn (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the great advice. I think I'll try an approach that generally uses option 1 where there's little chance of getting the thing in shape in a week. I think I'll make exceptions, though. If an article has been waiting for a review for a long time, I think I'll be more inclined to use a hold even if it requires lots of work, thus at least giving the nominator a slight chance to get it listed before having to overhaul it and potentially wait another three months for a second review. I suppose finding the right balance takes experience, which I admittedly have little of.--Batard0 (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You might also steer the author/nominator to the WP:GOCE (Guild of Copy Editors), which helps authors by giving a thorough going over of article prose and MoS issues. The GOCE, like GAN, has a backlog, so it may be a while before the article is reviewed there. The request can note that it's for a GAN; some reviews do pay extra attention to the GA criteria in that case. In any event, it sounds like it needs a major copyedit, whether undertaken by the guild or someone else. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Another good suggestion. Thanks much. I'm also thinking that in cases like these it's sometimes more practical for me to simply edit the article in small steps for clarity, conciseness, and grammar than to spell everything out in the review. I mean, it effectively results in the same thing. I can then tell the nominator to revert what he doesn't like and discuss. This seems to be permitted by GA review instructions, but is this sort of thing frowned upon?--Batard0 (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. It's often the best approach for everyone and it's what I've always done. Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

When reviewing, I copyedit as I go and advise people that they are most welcome to revert me if I've inadvertently guffed the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Ditto -- it's not only my practice when reviewing at GAN but also at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

While I like an easy time of GA and I nominated thinking it was good, quick pass here makes me nervous can some one take a quick look at the article and review? -LauraHale (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I only found one name that was consistently overlinked, and a number of formatted apostrophes that shouldn't have been, and fixed these, though Drmies had done an editing run before I got there. Perhaps this article would be an ideal candidate for the Reviewing group to check, since not one of this reviewer's four dozen reviews has yet been checked. The review, presumably, would be based on the article as it was before our post-pass edits were made. I know how you feel, though: there ought to have been some mistake, even a typo, that was overlooked by the reviewer. (Which, given what Drmies found in his edits, was indeed the case.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the edits made to the article by others as they did indeed improve it, and were the kind of thing I expected to be mentioned during a review. My African women's national football team articles all had comments on something. If a few edits had been made by the nominator to fix up a few small niggling things before passing, I'd have been more comfortable. Anyway, thanks for taking a look. --LauraHale (talk) 02:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Somewhere I got the idea that one non-free image with a good rationale for inclusion was permissible in an article, without really really good rationales.

The GA Brushstrokes series has four copyrighted images - not only two by Lichenstein (the artist in question) but copyrighted works by Dick Giordano, Jackson Pollock. Am I wrong? MathewTownsend (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Er, there's no limit to how many non-free images any article (good, featured, un-rated) may have. They all have to meet NFCC with proper rationals (meeting, importantly NFCC#8) and when the numbers start climbing, one has to ask about meeting NFCC#3a, but that doesn't limit non-frees to only one. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the copyright issue a serious one, when we are displaying to the world work that is under copyright? File:Brushstrokes source.jpg by Dick Giordano is used in five different articles about Lichenstein: Big Painting No. 6, Brushstrokes, Brushstrokes series, Little Big Painting and Yellow and Green Brushstrokes and none in the article about Dick Giordano, whose copyrighted work it is. Seems wrong. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the use of that image is excessive (not necessary per copyright reasons but for minimizing non-free imagery per NFCC); it makes sense on one or both of the "Brushstrokes" and "Brushstrokes series" articles since it is the work that inspired that series, but re-iterating it on every work that comes out of that series is no-no. --MASEM (t) 17:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I just removed a couple images from Brushstrokes series, hope it's fine now. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed File:Brushstrokes source.jpg by Dick Giordano from Big Painting No. 6, so currently it's in four articles on a specific work by Lichenstein: Brushstrokes, Brushstrokes series, Little Big Painting, Yellow and Green Brushstrokes.

Also, I believe that one of the criteria of a non-free rationale is that that copyrighted work be discussed in the text in a way so as to make the display of a copyrighted work necessary. In the case of the Lichenstein articles, there is no elaboration of Dick Giordano's work or how it relates to a specific work by Lichenstein. No discussion at all. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Brushstrokes and Brushstrokes series specifically mentions it with a source, and the connection between the two is very clear, when you see that in the text. While it is also mentioned in the others, the connection to the image of the articles are less obvious and thus would fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Madagascar women's national football team and Niger women's national football team were both reviewed by the same nominator. I want to emphasize that I would not have taken these to GAN if I didn't think they were at or very very close to GAN level. Topically, given the team histories of very few games, there is not much that can be said about them when compared to say Australia women's national football team. Hence, the articles will be short. I just kind of expect some comment on them, if only to verify for completeness sakes that it was checked to make sure I made these as complete as possible and a few wording checks. Can some one look over both? --LauraHale (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at them for you this week Laura, and give you the feedback on your TP. Regards! —Hahc21 04:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I want them to be good articles but legitimately if that makes sense and a second set of eyes to make sure they are legitimate passes is appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Colleagues, I'm alarmed to see that one editor has 25 simultaneous nominations. How is productive discourse between reviewers and a single nominator possible when there are that many? Could someone reassure me that the GA review round, which aims to churn through (an extra?) 200 noms in a month, will maintain standards? Tony (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As of this mornings report (Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report) you had 20 nominations. I don't know who has 25 (but it will be on tomorrow's report). In response: Firstly, If 20 (or 25) different editors review these nominations at the same time and the majority are put On Hold, then its up to the relevant nominator(s) to fix them in the time allowed (I assume that they are wikicup nominations). If that is not possible, the ones that are not fixed will not be listed. If the reviews are "fair" and the problems are not addressed then standards are maintained, i.e. they are not listed this time round. Secondly, some bad reviews will get through: I am reviewing some of the reviews, as is Wizardman and Hahc21 (and Grandiose has also reviewed one). There are reviews out there where the reviewer has failed the article, the nominator has objected and the review has been quietly reopened (yes we've seen them). In addition, the backlog organisers have the option of awarding negative points (wikicup can strike out entries on their score sheets as well). There are other ways that these poor reviews can be reversed, and examples can be found on these pages, e.g. "name and shame", referring the review to WP:GAR (either personal review or community). You have been active on these drives for quite a few years, so I am not telling you anything that you have not seen or don't know from your participation. Pyrotec (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC) see below. Pyrotec (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, wrong Tony... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know, but we edit-clashed. (see below) Pyrotec (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As of this mornings report (Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report), TonyTheTiger had 20 nominations. I don't know who has 25 (but it will be on tomorrow's report). In response: Firstly, If 20 (or 25) different editors review these nominations at the same time and the majority are put On Hold, then its up to the relevant nominator(s) to fix them in the time allowed (I assume that they are wikicup nominations). If that is not possible, the ones that are not fixed will not be listed. It is also possible that not all of those 20 or 25 nominations will be reviewed in the time remaining (time will tell). If the reviews are "fair" and the problems are not addressed then standards are maintained, i.e. they are not listed this time round. Secondly, some bad reviews will get through: I am reviewing some of the reviews, as is Wizardman and Hahc21 (and Grandiose has also reviewed one). There are reviews out there where the reviewer has failed the article, the nominator has objected and the review has been quietly reopened, and the nomination(s) "passed" (yes we've seen them). In addition, the backlog organisers have the option of awarding negative points (wikicup can strike out entries on their score sheets as well). There are other ways that these poor reviews can be reversed, and examples can be found on these pages, e.g. "name and shame", referring the review to WP:GAR (either personal review or community). It is worth noting that TonyTheTiger has participated in these backlog drives for a number of years, and so does have a good idea of the necessary standards are: I doubt (from past experience) that the articles are substandard. In the past I have reviewed (and passed) some of his "places/buildings" nominations, I have little interest in "sports" nominations so I tend to avoid them. Pyrotec (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well. I understand Tony1's concern. I had that same concern day before the drive started and I proposed here on the TP to stablish a limit of maximum number of simultaneous reviews a user can have. The result was that nobody supported my idea, and then you can pick as much articles as you want. Now, after the drive started, I don't worry too much about it. I just commit myself to check those reviews and verify its quality. If the quality is not met, the the article is relisted and the user i awarded a penalty of -1 points on his GA count. —Hahc21 14:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahc, I don't think Tony1 is concerned with how many reviews an editor is doing, he's concerned with how many nominations an editor has. The latter has been an ongoing issues at GAN, the former has never really been a problem. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Excuse me. I was confused. Well, yes. I've seen on the archive lifelong discussions about it. Sorry (: —Hahc21 15:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note in response to Pyrotec; right now, TonyTheTiger as 20 nominations, Gen. Quon has 17 and LauraHale has 13. None of these users are participating in the WikiCup (though Muboshgu, with 12, is). J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, I've now checked the (Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report) and I've not found anyone with 25 nominations. I just assumed that TonyTheTiger was doing wikicup, he was in 2010; and I have reviewed (and passed) some of his nominations. I don't believe that I've reviewed any from Gen. Quon, LauraHale, or Muboshgu. I do review some wikicup nominations and I sure that I have reviewed (and passed) three GAN that are up for "points" at wikicup. I will likely review more entries. I'm just surprised how little value wikicup places on doing a GAN review: it was 1 point, but is now 2. I've never done a DYK, so I don't know what effort is involved, but somehow I don't see reviewing five long articles at GAN, such Selenium, a "wikicup" entry, or Steinway & Sons is considered to be "worth" only one-fifth of a DYK. Pyrotec (talk)

Agreed. A nice intentive would be for the Wikicup to award more points to reviews of longer GANs (it would certainly encourage me). This being my first year in the Cup though, I'm not sure if that suggestion has been met with opposition in the past. Ruby 2010/2013 17:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The points were doubled from 1 to 2, one or two years ago but J Milburn is one of the coordinators (he also reviews GANs). Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A better alternative would be to increase the points for reviews of old GAs (say over three months). I would be careful though, we don't want to get a heap of fast reviews passing articles that should not be passed. AIRcorn (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Umm I'm talking about points for wikicup Wikipedia:wikicup, you may also be talking wikicup but you could also be talking GAN backlog drive. All Wikicup GAN reviews are (it is stated) checked and no points awarded if the review is considered by its organisers to be inadequate. The aim on backlog drive is an 80% check and even now questions are being raised (see below) about some reviews, e.g. presence of copyvios, ease of pass, etc. Pyrotec (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about the wikicup. AIRcorn (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a big issue here. I consider that providing the nominator with some "suggestions" on how to improve the references is great, but asking the user to change the references is outside the criteria. It's not a personal case but an overall concern I had since a couple of months ago, after seeing +50 reviews on where the reviewer asked the user to modify the references to pass the article.

So, the criteria explictly says.

"(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;"

It doesn't say anywhere how the references must be formatted. Also, the essay What the Good Article criteria are not says that:

"Point A means that there must be at least one section with a ==Level 2== header, containing a list of sources used in the article with section titles explaining the contents."

It also says that we must avoid:

"Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. (If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA.)".

Clearly, we (generalizing) have been violating the criteria by asking nominators to provide "consistently formatted" citations. I know GA is a process that goes before FA, but reference comments might be provided only as a suggestion, and not as a requirement for the article to pass the GA process.

Now, i want feedback. Regards! —Hahc21 14:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Compliance with What the Good Article criteria are not is not a requirement for GA, its an essay. What WP:WIAGA states, is:

a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[6]

and(c) it contains no original research.

I'm sometimes seeing, for example, raw web references (eg. not much more than "http:/www.some-site.com#some-page.htm"), references to newspaper articles/journal articles where some of the information is missing, e.g. author's name is missing (and its clearly there in the reference), journal/newspaper name missing (ditto), books without page numbers, 200ish-page reports (pdf files) with no page numbers. So I'm insisting on proper referencing/citations, so that the claims can be verified. I don't believe that "If you are able to figure out what the source is" is the requirement. The ability to verify the source is the requirement; and from that follows, either checking statements/claims against the source, or "accepting on trust" that it does. At one time there was a "naming and shaming" campaign that seemed to start at DYK (but I could be wrong on that) and later started looking for and finding copyright violations in GAs. If the requirement as a reviewer is only to check "If you are able to figure out what the source is", what defence do you have against passing an article with copyright violations? OK, checking for copyright violations is not a GA requirement, but there was an attempt to make it so (no agreement was reached on the "form of words to be used"). Pyrotec (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In doing reviews of other articles from my primary project/area of interest, I typically offer suggestions for improvement above and beyond what the GA criteria ask for, and I attempt to frame my comments as "these are additional suggestions for improvement" to clarify that failure to do them won't mean a failure to list the article. (I don't always if the nominator and I have worked together on a past review or they otherwise know my philosophy to reviewing.)

However, I'm of the belief that the references should look somewhat consistent, maybe not to the level expected at FAC, but at least not bare URLs that are missing the basic author/date/publisher information. The article should use the same basic citation system (either footnotes or in-line parenthetical references but not both), and the full citations should be decently complete as to the basic information given to the reader in a straight-forward format of some sort. Anything else is not a good article, and shouldn't be a Good Article. Imzadi 1979 → 15:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Following up on what Pyrotec said, let's say that the bare URL reference points to link that's now gone dead. With a more complete citation that states that "http:/www.some-site.com#some-page.htm" was to a local newspaper's article that's related to the subject matter with appropriate details, a reviewer can AGF that the citation backs the information just as they would with a citation to a paper book. There's no guarantee that the Wayback Machine ( http://www.archive.org/ ) can archive specific webpages, especially with news media websites that block archival, so failing to give basic citation information makes some sources unverifiable. As a second part of what Pyrotec said that relates well to what I said, there's a difference between being a "good article" and being a "Good Article", and we should not knowingly list items as GAs that have major deficiencies just because WP:WIAGA doesn't require something. Following copyright is a site-wide policy here that all articles really have to do, and I don't think that the GA process can just say "we don't require it" when it's actually required of everything we do. Imzadi 1979 → 15:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Many GA/FA reviewers are experienced and offer advice beyond the criteria. This is fine and usually helpful. The problem would come if an article is actually failed based on a misunderstanding about the criteria. maclean (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly. This is my point. I have no trouble with Pyrotec comments. References need the sufficicient information so that the reviewer can check them. My point is that if an article is failed because of the formatting of references (even if they can be verified), for example, an user failing article X "because the references are a mess, verifiable but a mess", is completely out of the criteria. In a review i recently checked, the reviewer said: "there are many issues with the format of the references in this article", further explaining: "Further reference mistakes I can see are dead links, a mix of date formats, missing dates and access dates, missing and wrong work parameters, and missing and wrong publisher parameters", and he lately failed the article; one of the reasons of the fail were the references. —Hahc21 21:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Articles do get put On Hold and sometimes failed for invalid reasons, some of which fall into the category of "personal reasons", and the reviewer may not know how to review GANs. "Wrong publisher parameters" could be a valid reason, if (say) the real publisher was Times of India but The Times was given that's a valid fail. The problem is that "Wrong publisher parameters" does not really state what was wrong, its just a label. Pyrotec (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not buying it. You'd actually fail an article over what amounts to a misleading wikilink in the publisher's name? Why not Just fix it already?
  The fact is that we don't actually require the date, name of the publisher, etc. to be present in the first place, so why would you fail an article for things like not achieving perfection in the date formatting? We require enough of a citation that you can figure out what the source is. The reason you need that much is so that you can verify the information, not because we want to see who paid attention during school lectures on bibliographic formatting. A dead, bare URL doesn't permit you to verify the information: that's not enough of a citation to identify the source. A 500-page book cited without a page number usually doesn't permit you to verify the information (unless the whole book is being cited for something, e.g., "The universe is vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big" could easily be supported by an entire work, The Size of the Universe), so you might say that's not enough of a citation to usefully identify the (relevant part of the) source. But mismatched date formats? Missing work parameters? Missing publisher names? If you can find the material in the source, then none of that matters. You can make a helpful, friendly, strictly non-required suggestion that these things be cleaned up, and you can clean them up yourself, but you should never fail an article over something like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add one more thing about citation formatting while it's on my mind: A couple of years ago, SandyGeorgia told me that FAC never fails articles over citation formatting. If it needs fixing, then someone just fixes it—herself if necessary. So it'd be especially silly for GA reviewers to fail articles over something that FAC just fixes, rather than failing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Get off your high horse WhatamIdoing. Its not about me failing articles for "that reason", this section is about an unnamed reviewer stated to have 50+ reviews "asking for references to be changed for the article to pass". As I stated above, there are poor reviewers out there who do put articles On Hold and sometimes fail them for reasons such as this (e.g. red links, references not on line, etc), but I doubt that anyone with 50+ "poor" reviews would go undetected. I would also tend to fix things myself (I have stated that already on this page), it is very often quicker to fix them than to list them on the review template, wait for them to be fixed and then cross them off. However, one nominator objected so strongly that an attempt was made on this page to stop this happening. If you want to make attacks on an editor, find out who the unnamed reviewer of these 50+ articles is, check the reviews and then attack that reviewer, not me. I fail less than 10% of what I review, and in a good proportion of those fails are because they don't get fixed by anyone (the nominator is not obliged to fix anything and I do occasionally come across reviews were all the fixes are made by an interested editor who did not nominate it). I'm well aware that you wrote Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, don't review at GAN/R yourself, and have a vested interest in, and long history of, these diatribes against reviewers. Pyrotec (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I will clarify this: I usually oversight many reviews per week. So, what I stated is that after I spotted on more than 50 reviews from the total i've checked in the past months that some reviewers were asking for the references to be properly formatted, I considered we needed to reach a consensus over this. I didn't meant that all 50 reviews were from a single reviewer nor that Pyrotec was the reviewer. So please, WhatamIdoing, avoid picking an unnecessary fight with Pyro. —Hahc21 15:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I never thought that your comment applied only to Pyrotec, and I am not picking on Pyrotec, although I do strongly oppose Pyrotec's stated position that linking to the wrong newspaper in a single citation is a valid reason to fail an article. I fully agree with Pyrotec that "Its not about me [Pyrotec]"; the fundamental problem is the GA culture that rewards reviewers (with high social status) who impose their own personal criteria rather than following the written ones.

Pyrotec is also wrong on the facts: I do a few reviews each year (I'd do more, except that there are typically very few noms waiting for reviewers in my subject area), and I scan through reviews via WP:GAN/R fairly often, usually with an eye towards nudging people to wrap up the stale ones. And while I did much of the grunt work to get GACN started two years ago, Geometry guy edited it more than I did, and since it was based entirely on discussions at the GA pages, I believe that it accurately represents the community's consensus on the points it addresses. I doubt that Pyrotec intends to claim that Geometry guy doesn't know anything about GAs or is just out to harass reviewers. I'm not sure what Pyrotec means by saying that I have "a vested interest in...these diatribes against reviewers". I'm not anti-reviewer. I'm pro-GA criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well. I oppose too to that statement of the wrong newspaper, but I just go this way: If a GAN onyl has problems that could be solved through minor edits, then I make all minor edits and pass the article. I'm thinking about apoening an RfC about the inclusion of reference formatting on the GA criteria, or explicitly stating that it must not be considered when passing/failing the article. —Hahc21 20:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I made no mention of Geometry guy whatsoever, so if WhatamIdoing is making claims that "Geometry guy doesn't know anything about GAs or is just out to harass reviewers" then they are WhatamIdoing's words not mine. I had not intended to state that "linking to the wrong newspaper in a single citation is a valid reason to fail an article", I stated a "valid fail" when I really meant "valid non-compliance. Please note: for an article which is a "Biographies of living persons" (see my comments below), in the case of a contentious statement, such an error (wrong citation details) would require immediate action (not a hold). I would also disagree with the statement "the GA culture that rewards reviewers (with high social status)". It takes a lot off time and effort to review long articles (some of my reviews take several days). Very many nominators are pleased to have their article reviewed and passed (even if they have a bit of work to do first) and respond in a positive manner on the review page and/or a talkpage, but there are a few that don't even respond: you know that they know its passed because they "chalk" it up on their talkpage, wikicup claim, project cup claim, etc. Reviewers with high throughput (such as when there are backlog drives and various "cups", project and/or wiki) can get "prizes". Then there are poor/bad/don't_know_what_they_are_doing reviewers doing reviews (six on one hour) and along comes the critics. Copyvios rear their head elsewhere and then people start checking for copyvious in recently passed GA's and two of them were passed by me and another one by another well-known reviewer (I'm not naming that editor). GA reviewers get slagged off for not checking for copyvios. Shortly afterwards, I get some help and find copyvios in two more articles I'm reviewing (both educational assignments, as it happened). An positive attempt was made to include copyright checking in the requirements, but it stalled. An editor drafted words to the effect "all but the poorest reviewers will be checking for copyright violations in the GAN reviews", this was not WhatamIdoing, but how many reviewers are doing full copyvios checks on their reviews? Pyrotec (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to Hahc21, you are selectively quoting parts of WIAGA and not taking into consideration my corrections. 1(a) is about references to sources, 2(b) is about in-line citations and it includes scientific references and biography of living people. Since you do review articles about living people you aught to be fully familiar with it. Scientific referencing, which also applies to other articles such as medicine (and I'd suggest articles about laws and regulations) is the closest to defining the requirements for in line citations. It (scientific referencing) does not in general apply to the pop songs articles that you mostly review, but you aught to be aware that they are living people and that laws of slander and liable do apply (its US Laws in this case) (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). If there is contentious material that is (for instance) attributed to the "Times" when it aught to be be "Time of India", or of that nature, its not a matter of "failing" the nomination (or putting it on hold), the material is to removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I do believe that not considering formatting is wrong, it could just be that different editors have worked on the article and that they had different formatting "standards", on the other hand it could indicate that the work was not properly researched, that bits were copied and pasted from elsewhere. In some cases, its not all that important about consistent referencing, but sometimes it is: but are you really in favour of passing Biographies of living persons with contentious but referenced statement when the article is riddled with, or has, inconsistent referencing? Pyrotec (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm against of passing BLPs with material that is contentious and poorly referenced. I know BLP very well, and I usually check contentious material to see if it meets the guideline. Since some months ago, I have the idea that, if most of the reviewers usually suggest or include on their reviews the format of references, why not modify the criteria to add: "references must follow a consistent format, without misspelling mistakes and incorrect information about the source supporting the claim." or something like that? Going honest, what I proposed from the beginning what that, If we could modify or reach a consensus on wether include or not the formatting of references into the GA criteria. My position is that It should. —Hahc21 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Pyrotec's basic assumption is wrong. BLP does not require perfection in citations. It does not require an absence of typos in citations. It does not require a person who normally refers to a reliable source by its informal name, The Times, to have correctly wikilinked it to any of the hundreds of newspapers that use that title in everyday speech. BLP rules are about contentious material that is "unsourced or poorly sourced". The question is the source, not the editor's skill in describing the source. It is not about contentious material that has a poorly formatted, misspelled, or otherwise imperfect citation to a high-quality source.

The map is not the territory. The citation (a written description of the source) is not the source (the newspaper article, book, or other publication). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In the same way WhatamIdoing that your statement Geometry guy doesn't know anything about GAs or is just out to harass reviewers is wholly WhatamIdoing's statement, not mine (I would not say that about Geometry guy), I did not claim that "BLP does not require perfection in citations. It does not require an absence of typos in citations. It does not require a person who normally refers to a reliable source by its informal name, The Times, to have correctly wikilinked it to any of the hundreds of newspapers that use that title in everyday speech.", neither did I claim the opposite. What I stated is that "If there is contentious material that is (for instance) attributed to the "Times" when it aught to be be "Times of India", or of that nature, its not a matter of "failing" the nomination (or putting it on hold), the material is to removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There is no mention of wikilinks to The Times and/or Times of India; neither do I mention the words "spelling" and/or "typos". We do for once have an agreement: if the source is The Times, calling it the Times of India, The Daily Record, the Guardian, or the The Sun (with or without wikilinks) is wrong. Pyrotec (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

PS I quite like your map - source metaphor. If I'm in Glasgow (I'm not by the way) and the source is Edinburgh I can get there with a suitable map - railway map of Scotland, map of bus routes between West and East of Scotland, A to Z or Scotland, Ordnance Survey map(s) of Scotland/UK, for example. I certainly won't get there if my map is "Uppdåttur Islands Adalkort BL.5 (MiĐ Ísland)". "Uppdåttur Islands Adalkort BL.5 (MiĐ Ísland)" is (or was when I bought it) a reliable source. Pyrotec (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let me say this differently: You claim above that when you use a newspaper article from "The Times of India", but you identify the name of the publication as "The Times" (a legitimate and common, but informal name for that publication) in the citation, that this creates a BLP violation. Right?

Let's have any example, just so we can be sure that we're talking about the same thing. You say that if I write, "Sellur K Raju's son died in a motor vehicle accident in June 2012", and I source it to this newspaper article, but instead of typing the citation correctly as:

"Minister’s son dies in road accident" (26 June 2012), The Times of India"

I instead type the citation as:

"Minister’s son dies in road accident" (26 June 2012), The Times (←NB two words missing at the end, which cause the wikilink to go to a different page)

then this somehow becomes "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" per the BLP policy.

I say: You are wrong.

BLP requires the actual source to be reliable. It does not require your description of the reliable source to be 100% accurate. The source does not become unreliable–and the material you are supporting with your still-reliable-but-misdescribed source does not becoming unsourced—simply because your description of the source is wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a carefully selected example, but it is a referencing "error" that could be encountered, and it is obvious in the second variant, using the information given in the citation, that there is an inconsistency in the naming of the source. The url link goes to the Times of India and it was possibly to verify the claim today, but if the url was not given and I tried to search the online Times I'd probably not be able to verify (I've not tried, I sure that if I'm wrong you will tell all of us). If I was reviewing an GAN article and I found that I'd fix it myself, I would not fail the nomination. Unfortunately Web links do get broken,or trashed during edits, so at some future point in time that url link might not be there or point to the source that is used as verification (so that could be a future BLP violation). This inconsistency between two "calls" to the same source is something that, I would like to think, would be found during the review and fixed. I would hope that you would accept that the more detail (redundancy) that is provided in a citation, the more likely that the correct source will be found. Also, that "Minister’s son dies in road accident" (26 June 2012), The Times of India is better than just http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Ministers-son-dies-in-road-accident/articleshow/14396685.cms, or The Times, 26 June 2012. I don't have particularly strong objections to the paper being called The Times, provided that the location (Mumbai) is given, that helps distinguish that Times from the UK's Times (neither I have I criticised your reference for omitting the location). I would hope that reviews are carried out using "common sense" and "tolerance" but your comments tend to suggest that reviewers don't use common sense, only you possess it (but not tolerance, you don't have that). I certainly do not claim that the description of the reliable source has to be 100% accurate nor that Geometry guy doesn't know anything about GAs or is just out to harass reviewers they are your statements, I did not make them. Pyrotec (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that you have made no such claims about Geometry guy, but you seem to making such claims about the purpose of GACN, a page that he is the #1 contributor to.

You said above "if (say) the real publisher was Times of India but The Times was given that's a valid fail." You say now that you would not fail it, and that it is not a BLP violation in the current, error-containing version. Have you changed your position? Are we all agreed that a badly written or badly formatted citation does not make the source unreliable, and that the GA criteria (currently) care about having good sources, not about having good descriptions of sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that I made no such comments about Geometry guy. I don't consider that the question is whether a "badly formatted citation makes the source unreliable, or not", the real question is whether a "badly formatted citation allows the claim(s) to be verified". We are taking above about a real example (manufactured, I agree). In that example, where there is a visible inconsistency but there is traceability back to the source, which allows the claim(s) to be verified, I would personally fix the inconsistency. I've also suggested that I could (possibly/probably) accept the source being given the colloquial name "The Times" provided that the location was given (as "Mumbai", or some suitable term to indicate that it was not the Times published in London, the UK). I'm not looking for a full citation, i.e. what was already given, plus Issue No. (some papers have Issue Nos), plus edition (early, late, morning, evening, etc), plus location, etc. In a hypothetical BLP article, if the source can't be found from the information given in the citation: that claim can't be verified. It comes back to your "map": if the citation states the equivalent of: "you can find it in bottom left hand square in the map, second in the pile on my bookshelf" - then I know that the source is and can verify it (and its a reliable source), but you certainly can't. You don't even know what maps I've got on my shelf - one might think e.g. its the Times of India map, page 5 and the other thinks is the Times, of London, map, page 5. The "map" has to be capable of identifying the source and that is its purpose, it does not appear to affect whether a source reliable, or not. Pyrotec (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Or, as GACN puts it, "If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA"—and conversely, if you aren't able to figure out what the source is (e.g., a dead, bare URL or seriously an incomplete description or any sort of error that makes it impossible for you to identify the source), then that's not good enough for GA.

I don't know why you said above that you disagreed with this standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

My comment was that GACN is not a standard, its an essay: the standard is ....(I don't need to...). I agree with a lot of what is given in GACN, but in a disagreement I'd always side with WP:WIGA. Apart from my first comment we seem to agree. Note: I've completed 427 GAN reviews so far and I've "failed" only 40 (almost 10%)(I "failed" a higher proportion of existing GAs on GA sweeps). I don't think my reviews are light-weight, but I don't fail articles for trivial reasons in the way this thread appeared to be suggesting. Pyrotec (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm reviewing Mermaid (Roy Lichtenstein) and became concerned with so many quotes (none by Lichtenstein), some short and some long quotes buried in the article and very long quotes in the citations. I addressed the issue with the editor: Talk:Mermaid (Roy Lichtenstein)/GA1, and he modified the article considerably, but I was still uncomfortable with the amount of quoting, concluding that I'd ask Moonriddengirl, which I did.[1].

Moonriddengirl and some other editors agreed that there was a problem in these articles with excessive quoting, especially as in some cases the same four critics were quoted excessively in different articles, until quite a bit of their work was quoted.

Mooriddengirl gave this [2] as a worst case example in her experience, and her example seems close to what I am bring up here.

There are a series of articles with this problem on Roy Lichtenstein's work and I listed some on her page, several having just become GA. She suggested adding {{non-free}} tag on the articles and starting a talk page discussion. She picked Look Mickey and going to show me how on but didn't have time and was going on vacation. So I don't have a model to follow.

I don't know what the limits on use of non-free quotes are in GA and I don't know how to get into a discussion about it regarding Mermaid (Roy Lichtenstein), Torpedo...Los!, Girl with Ball etc. Many of the quotes are short and could easily be put in the editor's own words; long quotes are frequently not put in blockquotes so is is not easily apparent they are quotes.

Any suggestions or guidance from others would be very helpful. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have failed or delisted articles which contained to many quotes (most recently Talk:Breaking Bad/GA2 and Talk:Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians/GA2). I don't know if there are any hard or fast rules when it comes to quotes in a GA, I asked at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria/Archive 3#Quote heavy nominations, but got no response. I generally use focus and prose as the reasons for failing the GA criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Would you be willing to give me your opinion on Mermaid (Roy Lichtenstein), either privately on my talk page, or weight in on Talk:Mermaid (Roy Lichtenstein)/GA1? How to use the{{non-free}} tag, as Moonriddengirl suggests? Where's the line drawn? And is weight given to the situation where there are many articles (e.g. on Lichtenstein's work) using different extensive quotes from the same author? MathewTownsend (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Quotes should only be used with a purpose. For example, providing someone else's subjective opinion (e.g. Mermaid is regarded as "dazzlingly silly and provocative".[4]). In the past, when I found excessive quoting, I pick a couple examples and ask the nominator, why is it important to use the author exact words here? There could be a reason I don't immediately see and there is a large grey area between when it is proper to quote the author's exact words and when it ok for us to paraphrase the meaning without using the specific words the author selected. I have cited Criteria 4 (Neutral) if they are weighing too heavily on one perspective and 3b if the quote is leading to excessive details. You can also use Criteria 1a (clear and concise prose) if it is really excessive or bad. maclean (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have followed Moonriddengirl's directions and use the {{non-free}} template on Portrait of Madame Cézanne, a recently passed GA. I have listed the quotes on Talk:Portrait of Madame Cézanne#concerns about copyvio. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• These articles written by the same editor, and all recently passed for the GA drive by the same editor, have excessive quotations:
• Artist's Studio—Look Mickey
• Look Mickey
• Golf Ball
• Torpedo...Los!
• Whaam!
• Girl in Mirror
• I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It!
• Girl with Ball
• Drowning Girl
• Big Painting No. 6

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I will have to review policy. I will look at Portrait of Madame Cézanne and the policy and get back to you.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, look at this from Wikipedia:Non-free content. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understand that guideline says "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." is acceptable. Each use does "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". I also understand that "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts." are unacceptable. You posted a long list of quotes for discussion at Talk:Portrait of Madame Cézanne. It does not seem to me that any of them is excessively long. All the quotes are of commonly accepted lengths for wikipedia articles. Can you please present your interpretation of applicable elements of that guideline for this situation?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It! almost certainly violates Michael Lobel (or their assignee's) copyright in "Technology Envisioned: Lichtenstein's Monocularity" through excess quotation. In part this is due to raw excess, in part it is as these quotes do not substantively contribute to Wikipedia's original collective work. I'd also describe it as plagiarism by coatrack. An element of this is also that the quotes are contained in notes, and do not contribute as part of an encyclopaedic discussion. Basically the quotes are acting to prove that the citation cites what it says it cites—this is unnecessary. Even when controversy causes verification demands, the content should probably be on Talk: or hidden. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

To add some objective measurement to Fifelfoo's comments, according to the pagesize tool in my word processor, the article text is 638 words. The footnotes alone contain 1,711 words, of which 1,306 words were the quotations. According to my word processor, the quoted material in the footnotes is twice the length of the article text. Imzadi 1979 → 12:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you put Portrait of Madame Cézanne through that word counting machine of yours? Plus it has three Fair use images, two of them are very similar.

Reply to Fifelfoo. I've detailed the excessive quotes on Talk:Portrait of Madame Cézanne#concerns about copyvio, and from particular authors on Talk:Portrait of Madame Cézanne#excessive quotes from the work of particular authors in this article. Surely at least David Deitcher's copyright is violated. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I just took a buzzsaw to Brushstrokes series (which I passed a week or two ago), hope it's fine now. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought this problem would be relatively easy to solve. Why not just remove, or at least drastically pare down, the quotes from the footnotes? AIRcorn (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Due to disagreements with the nominator about aspects of Wikipedia:Civility (see here and here), I am stepping down as the reviewer of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union article. The review is at Talk:Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union/GA1. I think the article is pretty close to be passed, just needs a read through for the second half, and an image check. I'll try to finish it after all... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been reviewing for very long, so please take this for what it's worth. As discussed above, I've noticed that sometimes nominations come through with clear flaws: words are missing, most sentences have basic grammatical issues, MoS:Lead compliance is suspect and so forth. In theory, it would appear that nominators must ensure articles comply with GA criteria before they submit. Sometimes it seems they don't. More likely, though, they either haven't read through the criteria thoroughly or simply do not recognize poor grammar, bad spelling, etc. Still, sloppiness in the prose is often a good indication of more general sloppiness likely to crop up on closer inspection of layout, references, citations, POV and other GA criteria.

Even if we assume good faith, which I think we should, this sort of nomination has an effect on the review process that I think one could argue does not necessarily benefit the encyclopedia. First, when editors decide to plow through and try to get these articles to GA, they spend a lot of time on them that could perhaps be better spent improving articles closer to meeting the criteria. There's a large backlog, so it's not as if there's nothing else productive to do. Second, when editors decide to fail them, they still must spend a good amount of time going through all the appropriate steps. Third, these articles don't help the considerable review backlog; it seems to me they often go unreviewed for long periods of time before any editor takes the plunge into what he/she knows will likely be a difficult case even if it's a fail. Fourth, I think there's an argument that these kinds of nominations tend to work against the overall quality of GAs. Inevitably, some of them get through without a full and proper review for any number of reasons.

What is to be done? How about a GA fail criterion that falls somewhere between a quickfail and a full review? A process like the following:

• Reviewer enumerates, say, a minimum of five glaring issues with prose clarity, grammar, spelling or MoS. These must be spelled out and briefly justified.
• Reviewer changes status to second opinion.
• Second reviewer takes a look to check if the article warrants a speedy fail, and makes a decision.
• A notice is posted on the page suggesting a copyedit review, if appropriate.

There are some good arguments against this idea. I see them as:

• It's discouraging to nominators whose intentions are all good.
• Wikipedia improves through the contributions of reviewers who are willing to do substantial work on an article, even if it's not close to meeting GA criteria.
• Some nominators have pretty much all the bases covered except for glaring issues with the prose and basic MoS compliance. Doing something like this is unfair and discriminatory.
• It simply clogs the backlog of the copyedit folks, who have enough of their own problems already (although arguably this is what a copyedit is supposed to address).
• There's no substantial time-saving in doing this versus simply failing the article.
• It makes the review process too complicated. Keep it simple.
• It's just not nice.

Any thoughts? Am I completely off-base?--Batard0 (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with everything you say in the first two paragraphs. It could be spelled out better in the guidelines maybe, but a reviewer already has an option when it comes to these sort of articles. Basically as I mentioned earlier, you can "fail an article without holding". You don't need to complete a full review, just outline the main points that need to be addressed, or you can use a simple checklist (for example see Talk:Braking chopper/GA1, Talk:Edible Arrangements/GA1 and Talk:Walkman S Series/GA1). As a reviewer you have a lot of freedom when it comes to deciding whether to fail or hold an article (quickfailing is a lot more confined). You can even do as you suggest with the second opinion as it can basically be used for anything (although more specific questions are easier to answer). AIRcorn (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Aircorn is right. If the article has serious flaws, then so long as you don't list it (don't pass it), then how much information you choose to type up on the review page and how long you leave it open is 100% up to you. You don't need a second opinion (and although you may officially request a second opinion for any reason at all, I personally encourage you not to request one, because it's really a waste of the other person's time). You just need to explain that the article, in its current state, does not meet the criteria.

You might find it easier if you think of it this way: you aren't failing an article. You are choosing not to list it at this time. The true outcomes from any review are "listed" or "not listed". "Pass" and "fail" are just convenient reviewer shorthand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Leicester Cathedral was passed as a GA by a new user (with their account's first edits) in this state. The article contains unreliable sources, entirely unsourced paragraphs verging on original research, etc. I'm not very experienced with GA reassessment, but I think one may be warranted here. Thoughts? Ruby 2010/2013 16:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way would just to relist it at GAN. Reviews can be carried out by any user with a user name, but the username appears to have been created so that the review could be done. Its not a GA in terms of referencing, the sources, with one exception, are taken from the cathedral's web site. Pyrotec (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do is just to delist it, which I've done. Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, an example of why GAs and the people that promote them need some more work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What does this even mean? AIRcorn (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It means that many GAs are promoted prematurely (i.e. they need more work) and many of the people vested with the ability to promote GAs (i.e. anyone) need more work. Hope that helps! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for your view that many GAs are promoted prematurely, by which you presumably mean before they have reached the GA criteria? Of course any article could do with more work, so that hardly distinguishes GAs in any way. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just think if something like Vanuatu at the 2008 Summer Olympics, or Leicester Cathedral could be considered good articles, then it demonstrates a weakness in the process. Of course, the obvious answer is that I should advocate changes to the GAN process, but in all honesty, I was just responding to the original thread here. It seems clear that articles can be promoted to GA by just about anyone, and there's no governance other that going through the delisting process if anyone spots these issues. While that's reality, it does seem a little odd to have "good articles" which have no real quality control. (btw, hadn't noticed you'd "unretired" again Malleus, welcome back.) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

As I hadn't retired then I haven't unretired, but I don't spend much time here any more. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fair play, in either case, nice to see you back. Yes, we can "unpromote" them easily, but I just wonder if we need a touch more quality control before they claim to become our "good articles". If an editor with no experience at all can tag an article as good and away we go, it seems, in my mind, to undermine the whole issue of quality in our GAs. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they turn up at a talk page out of the blue and insult a large group of editors with vague blanket generalisations. AIRcorn (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

`Developing' editor here... Over the last year I've reviewed four articles for GA, to whit:

• Talk:Live_Prayer/GA2 - fail
• Talk:Reading,_Berkshire/GA2 - pass
• Talk:Catenary/GA1 - fail
• Talk:1962_Commonwealth_Paraplegic_Games/GA1 - pass

...and it would be nice to get a bit of feedback on my reviewing before I go launching myself properly into the GAN drive... would anyone have any quick comments? Fayedizard (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading through them your reviews look good to me. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it premature to nominate Ashton Kutcher on Twitter? Can you nominate an article for WP:GAN when it is at WP:AFD? The AfD nomination appears to suggest the article fails the stable criteria. Beyond that, File:@aplusk.JPG has been nominated for deletion. Thoroughness also appears to be a problem as a number of sources mentioned in the AfD have not been incorportated that provide a broader coverage of the topic. This is a point that has been brought up several times on the AfD. --LauraHale (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The article was nominated for GAN on June 8 and the AfD was begun on June 10, so at the time it was nominated it was in the clear. Given the notice of the AfD in the GAN nomination, it doesn't make sense to start the review until the AfD has been closed one way or the other. Assuming the article survives, if the issues mentioned in the AfD are reflected in the review, I imagine the article is unlikely to pass. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If I make a reassessment of a past listed GA during the drive, It can be counted? I can't ask myself and give an answer, so I go this way. What the community thinks about it? —Hahc21 07:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not really sure what you're asking. Do you want to nominate a GA for reassessment? That's a separate process from anything involving the drive. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No haha. I reassesed an article I considered didn't met anymore the GA criteria. What I ask is that if it can be included (the reassessment) on the drive's count. Is just a question I have. >.< —Hahc21 19:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see what you're saying now. The drive is just for nominations so reassessments would not count. You're of course welcome to continue looking out for GAs that don't meet current standards though. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

So far, the GA drive has been going relatively smoothly. However, so far there are still two articles from February and eight from March that need a review. Can we make these top priority, rather than reviewing ones that have been waiting 30 minutes? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Next drive I'd like to see a bonus given for reviews on Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items, for instance three points given instead of one, or some way to incentivize reviews for those articles. Albacore (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That would probably be good. Yes it's great that Episode articles are not backlogged in the slightest anymore, but the ones that have been sitting certainly deserve to be taken care of first; I had to fail one already because the writer was long gone. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the article Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore on the GA1 page and gave the requested second opinion. I think it's a pass. See Talk:Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore/GA1 - my completed review is at the end. (I fixed the references, Wizardman). Another editor also remarked that it was a pass. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

ps. I also copy edited the article. How to I note on the Good article nomination page that a second opinion was given? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Usually the first reviewer would consider the second opinion, then decide to pass the nomination, fail it or place it on hold. However, the first reviewer for this nomination seems inexperienced. Are you an experienced reviewer? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm experienced. See User:MathewTownsend/GA reviews. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have moved my proposal for a GA help desk from my user space into Wikipedia space (at Wikipedia:Good article help). No links to it have been added yet. Please visit it, watchlist it and improve it if you can. I have also started a FAQ (using the one at the top of this page as a base) at Wikipedia:Good article frequently asked questions. It is linked to from the help page. If some experienced editors could add any question you have encountered in your travels and double check the ones currently in it that would be great. When we are comfortable that it is ready I will link to it from this page and any other suitable locations. CheersAIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

From the brief look I can't tell the functional difference between the new GA help desk and the combination of WP:GAN header and WT:GAN. Did I fail to notice something. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It is true that WT:GAN serves this purpose right now. However it also serves as the place to ban reviewers, propose changes to the process, discuss general conerns and many other GA related issues. I was attempting to make a one-stop shop for new reviewers. A place dedicated to helping editors that are just starting out reviewing. It may also serve some of the lesser, or even more, experienced reviewers too. Having it all in one spot might encourage more questions and hence more reviewers. I don't know if that will be the case, but with the backlogs we have been having I figured it was worth a try. AIRcorn (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see that Help Desk replace the Second Opinion function. My own personal experience, I haven't seen the Second Opinion function be very effective. maclean (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How do I nominate a convicted murderer's biography (Elias Abuelazam, got international attention for suspected racial related murders in 3 U.S. states, tried to flee the country, and serving life without parole, etc. etc.) for good article review? TomCat4680 (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Follow the instructions in the green box on How to nominate an article given in Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I know but I don't see biographies. Where is it? TomCat4680 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly in the Law subtopic of "Social sciences and society". Its not all that important if its slightly wrong. Miscellaneous is the one that it is used when the nominator can't find a "label" to use. Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Odd there's none for biographies, but I'll just use that. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Athletes go under Sport, politicians under Politics, authors under Literature, actors under Theatre, film and drama and so on. I agree with Pyrotec that law would be the best category for this topic (have updated the template so it should point there now). I think you will be more likely to get a review under a subtopic than miscellaneous. AIRcorn (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

After Xiaxue suffered a couple of horror reviews by Plarem, with comments like "you cannot skip C and B class before you go to GA standards", I made some improvements and renominated, hoping for a better review. The next reviewer, Grandiose, and I had a legitimate disagreement over broadness of coverage, which led to a request for second opinion, but the second reviewer, Batard0, said that "most of the references are not linked, which is frustrating for readers because it's impossible to judge the reliability of the sources without being able to read them" (since when was being available online a requirement for a reference to be deemed reliable?) and asking for an infobox (a personal opinion, not part of the GA criteria).

My nomination of MINDS was among the five oldest unreviewed nominations for several days, but I would prefer waiting longer than to receiving a poor review asking me to remove all disambig links (the tool found none) and red links from the article, telling me the article "lacks required reliable references" (the reviewer, vaibhavgupta1989, later clarified that one reference was outdated), suggesting the article be broadened with information such as "how one can get enrolled for voluntary activities" (which I would consider encyclopediac) and saying the article "could be upgraded to a C category article". Only after an argument did the reviewer request a second opinion and I hope that the second reviewer, Argos'Dad, is sufficiently experienced!

New reviewers are constantly needed to keep the backlog down, but the learning curve for new reviewers is steep and mistakes are inevitable. For experienced GA writers (I have written 9 GAs), such poor reviews are merely annoying, but new GA writers may be misled into believing that references must be available online and articles must go through B-Class before their GA review. How can the damage from poor reviews be mitigated and how can new reviewers be properly guided, without being bitten? This is particularly relevant during a backlog elimination drive, which is likely to attract new reviewers. I have several ideas, but could experienced reviewers attend to the nominations of Xiaxue and MINDS?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! About Xiaxue, I see all Ok from an overview, but I recommend the infobox to be used, as it's a standard for biographies. On MINDS, references needs work. Refs are not written as they should. You might not write "Article, Publisher, Date". The correct use is a period, not a comma. Also, some key information is missing from the references. Example: "Singapore Children's Charities website (accessed on 24 June 2012)", this is not properly formated at least with the minimum information to be found if the link goes dead. I won't comment further since i have not much time to read the article, but i see key flaws on MINDS. —Hahc21 16:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Help:Citation Style 1 uses periods, but Help:Citation Style 2 uses commas. Wikipedia doesn't have a single house style for citations, and we allow any other style guide's system, see WP:CITEVAR. Infoboxes aren't technically required, but they've been pretty much standard, and some wikiprojects openly prefer them for different reasons. I wouldn't require one in a review, but I would strongly encourage their use in certain cases. Unfortunately, consistency of reference style isn't a GA criterion (even though wide inconsistency makes an article look "not good" even if it doesn't mean it's "not a Good Article"). Personally, my preference is to use the Style 1 templates and fill in as much information as possible as soon as possible in dealing with an article so that I'm not left to try to find a source at a later date just to fill in the missing details. I recommend similar approaches to other editors, even if they aren't using the templates. Imzadi 1979 → 18:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes are controversial (remember User:Disinfoboxman) and are not required for FA (in fact, often discouraged there). Also Reviewing good articles - imposing your personal criteris says that only an article that fails one or more Wikipedia:Good article criteria can be failed. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to chime in about MINDS, red links are a good thing. If they're not stupid red links like this fella right here, and point to something which is a notable topic, then by all means include them. For instance, we don't have an article on film composer Berto Pisano (it.wiki does, though) but that doesn't mean that linking to his name is a bad thing, as it encourages the creation of the article (I'll get to it sooner or later). Same applies to any valid red links in MINDS or any other article; keep them in if they could realistically point to a notable encyclopaedic topic. GRAPPLE X 19:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Removing "valid" redlinks may appear to be a superficial short-term improvement; in practice, it's long-term damaging both to the usefulness of the article and to the encyclopedia as a whole. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

We keep having these discussions. The answers are always the same: WP:Redlinks are good. Disambiguations are not required. Dead URLs are (usually) okay per WP:DEADREF. If there's enough of a citation there for the reviewer to be able to identify the source, then the GA criterion is met. We don't fuss about commas vs periods (even if WP:ENGVAR didn't tell us that either is 100% acceptable) or whether every possibly-someday-in-the-future useful bit of information is included. Some reviewers probably believe that we should, but that's not in the GA criteria, and the job of a reviewer is to compare the article to the actual, written criteria, not to his (or her) own ideas of what a nice-looking article is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The real problem is that some people doing reviews don't appear to have read the GA criteria neither have they read WP:GACN, or if they have they are not reviewing the articles against them. Pyrotec (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Wizardman and MathewTownsend, for providing further reviews of MINDS, which is now a GA! Aircorn has offered input at the review of Xiaxue, though I would appreciate if another experienced reviewer chipped in. Having reached the milestone of writing 10 GAs, I would also like to thank the GA reviewers and others who maintain the GA project.

Have you realised that the GA process can help counter systemic bias? The less demanding criteria enable the participation of ESL editors in the development of articles about poorly covered areas, such as disability topics and Asian culture. What could the GA project do to further encourage Wikipedians to counter systemic bias?

By the way, I have written an article about a Singaporean food business, Ya Kun Kaya Toast, currently undergoing peer review in preparation for a GA nomination, and was wondering whether to place the nomination under "Agriculture, food and drink" (like KFC) or "Economics and business" (since Ya Kun is a business).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely under "Economics and business" I'd say. Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The first question has already been raised here on 9th June 2102 (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 16#GA can counter systemic bias) and I've reviewed an article on that list as have other reviewers. The answer to the second is that it does not matter too much: list it under "Economics and business" as suggested by "Malleus" and if you like add a note to say that it could also be considered under the other topic. Some other nominators already do that. Pyrotec (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That GA reviewers should give priority to nominations of articles on poorly covered topics is an excellent idea! Thanks for answering my question regarding which category to place Ya Kun Kaya Toast when it is nominated in a couple of weeks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as my reviews are already started by the end of the contest, what is the deadline for completing the reviews?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no deadline. You can finish the reviews after the drive is closed and they will still be in your count. Cheers! —Hahc21 00:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be realistic, actually. If the article's still being reviewed at July's end then I can't realistically count it. Two weeks plus should be reasonable for reviews to be completed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well. Wizardman is right. When i said "no deadline" I meant the time realistically needed for the review. So, per Wiz, deadline is July 31. —Hahc21 02:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

How can we help limit the damage caused by poor reviews, while helping new reviewers learn from their mistakes instead of biting them?

My suggested system:

• Two tiers of reviewers, "new" and "experienced".
• A page listing experienced reviewers.
• New reviewers are required to request a second opinion on their reviews and declare that they are new.
• New reviewers may not give second opinions on other reviews.
• New reviewers become experienced after five of their reviews have been checked and cleared.

The rationale is as follows:

• The "one reviewer" system generally works and is only unreliable when the reviewer is new. Minimal increase in bureaucracy since the "second opinion" option already exists and the list of experienced reviewers can be automatically updated by a bot tracking reviews by new reviewers.
• Since most reviews are by experienced reviewers, only a small percentage of reviews would be affected.
• If new reviewers declare that they are new and their reviews are checked, then their mistakes would not mislead new nominators and experienced nominators would not bite new reviewers out of frustration.
• All new reviewers should be properly guided and under no circumstances should they be giving second opinions, so mandating these (and easy identification of new reviewers) simply prevents poor reviews and abuses of the system from slipping through the cracks. In addition, the requirement would ensure that all new reviewers are properly guided and would encourage the development of better resources for new reviewers.

Any thoughts on this idea?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea. Poor reviews from historic past have been wiped out by GA Sweeps. Now every contested review can be sent to GAR. Creating 2 tiers is adding unnecessary bureaucracy and instruction creep to existing process which is working well. Making them declare themselves as new reviewer is equivalent to making them wear the badge of shame. And how will you define "new reviewers"? Newcomer to Wikipedia (in that case it certainly violates bite)? New to GAN (even if they have edited Wikipedia for 1, 3, 5 years)? New if they haven't written X amount of GAs? You're just needlessly opening a can of worms. When we have 300+ outstanding nominations since February 2012, adding a new layer that impedes the existing reviewing process is counter intuitive and more importantly, counter productive. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we need new reviewers to help clear the backlog, but are the new reviewers properly guided, so that they can become the next generation of experienced reviewers? Some, including myself, have expressed concerns over the quality of reviews during the backlog elimination drive. Of course, new reviewers are likely to make mistakes and you suggest that all poor reviews should lead to the nominator filing a reassessment request. That would annoy the nominator and bite the new reviewer more than having the review checked by an uninvolved experienced reviewer. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. Anyone, including but not limited to the nominator, can file an entry at GAR. The original problem you mentioned with regards to GAN in general (and not backlog elimination drive) is not new and you're not the first one to come up with different solutions to address this issue. We have too many drama and newbie-biting rules already comparing to the good old days (i.e. 2005-2008 when everyone's relatively new). Past discussions agreed that GA is not as rigorous as FA and any of the problems you mentioned can be quickly addressed through GAR. Some people are quick to learn and others are not as bright. There is no guarantee that someone becomes an experienced reviewer after 5 reviews. There are so many "ifs, ands, or buts" that unless you write the rule unambiguously like a lawyer, there's going to be arguments down the road. Discussions are going to get heated, then accusations, and someone calling for a block or a topic ban. Moreover, similar suggestions in the past mentioned that new reviewers can simply invoke WP:IAR and circumvent it, making this rule totally obsolete. Going back to your second comment on backlog elimination drive. It's the duty of the drive coordinator to do spot check on each individual's review (and more preferably, all reviews if there's enough time and resource). Back in 2007 when I coordinated a 2 month drive along with 2 others, we literally checked every single review. But for spot checking, the approach is to randomly pick an article. If it's ok we move on. If it's questionable then we'll pick another to see if there's a pattern in spotty reviews. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ohana is right in that conducting many reviews does not make someone a good Good article reviewer. Not too long ago I came across a reviewer who has done 27 GA reviews, but was still asking for all redlinks to be removed. As anyone that has nominated a number of reviews will know it can be a bit of a lucky dip with the review. However the only real serious problems occur when you have a poor nomination given a poor review, and then only if the reviewer passes it. I know this is a flaw in the process, but we simply don't have the numbers to follow your suggestion. Saying that, I do think a tool that allows us to identify how many reviews an individual has done. Not for any formal requirement, but to allow anyone interested in quality control to watch and advise new reviewers if they so wish. There are toolserver pages that can identify RFA and AFD !votes so it should be possible to develop one to find the number of GA pages started by different reviewers (although outside my area of expertise). I would find it interesting to compare that with the editors GA nominations (but that is a completely different topic). I am hoping the the introduction of a help desk will help make reviewers better as well as encourage new reviewers. AIRcorn (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A reviewer who has done over 20 reviews still asks for all redlinks to be removed? Do you agree that such poor reviewing is the result of inadequate guidance of reviewers, especially when they are new? My proposal is simply that all reviews by new reviewers must be checked, so that new reviewers get enough guidance and nominators are less affected by their mistakes (since requests for reassessment are after the fact, while checking prevents unfair outcomes in advance). The proposal of identifying reviews by new reviewers via a tool and having interested parties advise new reviews is a milder version (poor reviews remain dealt with after the fact), which I would support, if and only if there are sufficient interested parties. If new reviewers are not guided and poor reviewers are not properly dealt with, this may affect how nominators write articles. For example, I would limit my use of Chinese and Malay sources in my Singapore-related GAs, even though they contain more useful information and make transwiking easier. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, there are some excellent reviewers here and most do a fine job. Many of the poorer reviews I have come across are concentrated on pop culture articles. The problem is that many of the better reviewers tend to avoid those articles leaving it to only a few interested parties. In effect you have a group of editors reviewing each others articles. They review in good faith, but may lack the skills to correctly identify all the issues, particularly prose issues. This has come up a few times in the past. You are right though in that the best solution is to turn poor reviewers into good reviewers and guidance is a part of that. We could probably be a bit more proactive in suggesting below standard reviewers accept mentorship. We could even do a bit of de-facto mentorship; though reviews are set up to be passed by one person, there is nothing stopping others giving advice on an ongoing review. I for one would be willing to check new reviewers and offer advice as needed. A politely phrased talk page note welcoming them and inviting questions would probably be appreciated by most. I will look into getting a tool to identify a users reviews. AIRcorn (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User Haon 2.0 (talk · contribs), who had done an "After reviewing the article in question, I believe that it has met the criteria of a Good article" review (that's it) on the GA1, which was subsequently reversed by Wizardman, has just done a GA2 that repasses the review with the words, "Upon re-reviewing, I stand by my original assessment and say that The Muppets (film) does indeed meet Good article standards".

Haon 2.0 is the same person who took on the review of Talk:Contagion (film)/GA1 on June 29, but only produced: "While I feel that this article is good, and am somewhat of a film buff, myself, I'm going to ask for a second opinion from a person who claims to be very knowledgeable about film and media." TRLIJC19 ended up giving a second opinion, which was basically a sample full review, on June 30, and Haon 2.0 has not been back. The nominator, DAP388, is asking for a new reviewer, and no wonder.

I'm reverting the placement on the GA icon on The Muppets (film), and will drop a note on Haon 2.0's talk page, in the hopes that no additional reviews will be forthcoming before he or she learns what such reviews really entail, and is willing to apply all the standards properly. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

And now it's received a review from TBrandley. May be worth looking at the section below... J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is the review:

Issues:

References: Ref. 76 - AV Club should be The A.V. Club

That's all! Great work, fix issue and it'll pass. TBrandley

So, isn't this the same as Talk:At Long Last Leave/GA1 discussed below? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange). If you have any questions, you can leave me a note on my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The above was nominated on 15 June 2012, and the review started 16 June. However, it is now 1 month on, and nothing else seems to have been "reviewed". Could someone please have a look and probably finish of the review. Regards, Wesley Mouse 16:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the most recent comment by Tomica was on 1 July, though he didn't return when he said. I just looked at the article's page, and I see three bare references and several more without access dates, and that's only a cursory glance. I've just pinged Tomica, but you might want to fix those problematic citations while you wait. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks for the feedback. I'm not 100% certain when some of the refs had been accessed, so would I be safe to just use today's date on them to get around the issue? Also I was the nominator for the GA review, and time is running out for me (so to speak). I'm a volunteer at London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games, and thus will be disappearing from Wikipedia starting next week, and won't be resuming normal activity until early September. Wesley Mouse 09:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

If you go back to Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012/GA1 and use the toolbox to check external links, that will quickly check whether all the links are valid at the time that you check them. I see no problem in using that date for references that are undated. So when is your deadline, today, tomorrow, etc? Pyrotec (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh I didn't know I could use that toolbox too. I've started to manually go through all the links and check them, plus able to find the source authors too. As for the deadline, the games start 27 July 2012 which is also the first day of my shifts as a volunteer too. I'll be travelling to London the day before, so in reality the 26 July would be the date that my activity on Wikipedia will be at a minimum. Yikes, excitement is kicking in. Wesley Mouse 10:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching the spoof comedy "Twenty twelve" on BBC2 these last few weeks - I hope that it is not accurate reflection of what went on, but I found it very enjoyable to watch. I don't particularly like picking you other people's unfinished reviews. If Tomica doesn't respond this week I'll happy look at it and, it looks like a GA, but I've not read it, "pass" it; but you might have to do a bit of work first (I could do it in a few hours). Pyrotec (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Twenty Twelve is awesome, makes me laugh constantly. Thankfully it is only a spoof and doesn't reflect on the reality of things, and can reassure you on that one from an insider point of view. Although saying that us Games Makers (the volunteers) do try and replicate the show at times for a bit of light humour between ourselves. Now back to the serious business at hand, it would be appreciative and most kind of you to offer to pick up the pieces and complete the review if it comes to that. I should have the refs tidied up within a few hours. Wesley Mouse 11:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Update - All the problematic citations have now been fixed. Any data that was missing from reg tags have now been filled in, and any raw links that didn't have the {{cite web}} tags have now got them. Wesley Mouse 14:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Schedule update - I had previous mentioned that my activity on Wikipedia would be on an Olympic sabbatical from 26 July 2012, this date has now been brought forward, as I have now been asked to commence my first shift of 21 July 2012, thus meaning I won't able to log into Wikipedia as much as I normally do from 20 July onwards. Wesley Mouse 14:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this considered a satisfactory review? Just curious. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't see why not. It looks like a pretty decent article to me, so not much to say in the review. Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you found any problems with the article, or did you just think the review was small? Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was unclear how much should be in a review to be complete. Usually if I think something should be linked, I do it myself and note my edits in the review. But I see I'm doing a whole lot of unnecessary work! So thanks for the clarification. I can just list a few minor issues and say "Good work, article passes." No need for the template and all that stuff. Good to know! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I fear that you've fundamentally misunderstood what you've been told. But whatever. There's certainly no need for the template, and I've never used it. The only important question is, do you see any issues that the reviewer has missed? I don't. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe he had an issue with the review, but saw one that was brief and to-the-point and wanted to be sure it was alright with other editors so that he could be comfortable emulating it. GRAPPLE X 19:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's right. I've been doing a bunch of unnecessary stuff. So all I have to say is "I don't see any issues". I was under the impression I had to clarify that I'd addressed image, checked the citations for plagiarism and accuracy, made sure there was no POV and all that stuff. So thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, I think. But I've certainly never seen an article without at least some issues that ought to be addressed, not even at FAC. For minor issues like spelling, grammar, linking and so on, I've just fixed them myself, never brought them up in a review. The only things I mention in a review are those things I can't fix because I don't have the sources, don't understand what's being said, problems with image licensing, that kind of thing. My view has always been that every GA reviewer checks against all the GA criteria, so no need to spell it out with a template. The work, of course, is in actually checking, not in ticking a box on a template. But in very exceptional cases I'd have no problem with a GA review that simply said "I don't see any issues", so long as you'd actually checked for any. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course that is a poor review, as I think MathewTownsend is pointing out, and of course a reviewer should clarify that they've checked for image copyrights, plagiarism, etc. Just at a passing glance there is a dead link, so if the reviewer can't be bothered to click a link for the sake of a good article review then I would venture to say the review itself was poor and the article isn't truly "good". Albacore (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the current article; I've only looked at it briefly, as I helped Theleftorium with an image issue, but his articles are usually excellent. That said, TBrandley's reviewing does seem to leave a lot to be desired; a standard review, seemingly, consists of a very short list of superficial changes (such as recommendations that particular words be linked or that an external link be added) and then a rubber-stamp pass. I've never seen him fail an article, even though some of those that he has reviewed have been very much below the standard expected of a GA. (For instance, Talk:Ed (Ed, Edd n Eddy)/GA1 and Talk:Eddy (Ed, Edd n Eddy)/GA1 were later dislisted as the articles were merged- see my comments here for an account of the weaknesses of the articles.) I have not talked to the user in question about this as I am yet to find the time to take a detailed look. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

oh dear! I've been using the quickie method recommended by Malleus Fatuorum. I do check everything. I check for dead links before I sign up to review the article as one indicator of the state of the article. So, what's the verdict? Will it be taken on good faith that the reviewer has checked everything if the review is: "I don't see any issues" when I have checked all the things mentioned in the template? It will be taken in good faith that I have addressed each of those issues? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. the first link I checked in At Long Last Leave coincidently was dead:[3] (I always check the links for quotes to make sure the quote is accurate and not taken out of context. And I check links to see if they accurately reflect the content in the article.) Am I going overboard? More than is required of a GA review? Isn't one of the criteria accuracy? MathewTownsend (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no criterion that forbids dead links, and as far as I'm concerned they're only a serious problem if they're numerous or significant enough to compromise the verifiability of the article. I've always recommended that they be fixed, but I wouldn't alway insist on it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus that it is easier to fix some problems during the review, rather than list them, wait for them to be fixed and then recheck them. However, if the reviewer is working that way, the changes are visible in the article's history. There is no evidence in the case of At Long Last Leave that the reviewer took that approach. I also like to add the template at the end of my reviews. Talk:At Long Last Leave/GA1 just looks like a superficial review with (to use J Milburn's words) "a very short list of superficial change" requests. P.S. the criteria is verifiability, rather than accuracy, but if the claim is 1 + 1 = 2 then the citation(s) should support that statement. So, yes the is a need to check that the "quote (and/or the cited claim, it does not have to be a direct quotation) is accurate and not taken out of context". Pyrotec (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Including the template is one way for the reviewer to state that the article passes all these areas, without going into further detail. As for your checks, you're not at all going overboard. Those are highly appropriate. Spot checks for copyvio and close paraphrasing, which I imagine you also do, are in order as well.

There are a number of reviewers in the current round who have not had any reviews checked for quality by the quality control team. TBrandley is the most prolific of those unchecked at 49 reviews, but others have a significant number, including AJona1992 with 16, and most of the rest have one or two checked, less than 10% (the goal is 80% examined). I count 20 reviewers who have zero or one check mark, which isn't great quality control at this late date. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that these are in effect "claims" for points, and they can be struck out or negative point(s) awarded any time before the end of the drive (but I'm not an organiser). You are very welcome to review any or all of these "claims". Pyrotec (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The template is no more or less useful than a simple statement that the article meets the GA criteria, which is implicit in it being listed as a GA anyway, so superfluous. Those who like ticking boxes in templates are quite free to do so, but they should try to do so without suggesting that those of us who don't are carrying out sub-standard reviews. Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Having experienced some of your GAN reviews (but not as a nominator) I would never described them as sub-standard. Pyrotec (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

For many newer or infrequent reviewers, the templates are a useful aid to memory or to help organize what needs to be checked. It's why their availability is mentioned on the GAN page's "How to review" section. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Malleus. Sure the templates can be helpful, but to require people to use them is silly. I've never needed to use them, but then again I was reviewing before it was cool. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether it was cool or not when I did my first GA review, almost five years ago now, but I do remember getting rather a dismissive response when I asked for some feedback on it. Since then though I've done way over 500 GA reviews, and I don't feel that I need a template to remind me what to check. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto (not about 500 GA reviews, but not needing a template to remind me what to check)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I've only been doing them four years and I'm almost at 500 reviews. I don't need a template to remind me what to check but I do use them. It is a personal choice: I'm not trying to force my way of doing it onto other reviewers. Some of my reviews, particularly of Ealdgyth's short middle-ages "greats" nominations appear to be superficial so the ticks in the boxes are there to show other people that I have considered all the points (and their GA-class articles, some make FA). However, in many respects this is a side issue it should be about reviewers doing inadequate reviews and passing nominations that arguably should not have been passed. It does not seem all that important whether these "inadequate reviews of substandard nominations" have a full set of ticked boxes or no boxes at all. "Cool, great, GA" does not appear to be an adequate record of a review: and I've see some like this on articles that should not be listed as GAs. From the above comments, if the article is unarguably GA then "Cool, great, GA" does appear to be acceptable, so I'm not going to argue about it. Pyrotec (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

At Long Last Leave looks and reads like a Good article. However a quick look at Invasion (Grey's Anatomy), another one of TPBradely's passed articles with only a short review revealed quite a few prose issues. These should really have been picked up in the review. The plot section is also quite disjointed and there is an overuse of large quotes in the production and reception sections. The reviews of other articles listed at their backlog drive page all appear to be superficial as well. I would say that most of them would need to be checked. AIRcorn (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually that article is still on hold. AIRcorn (talk) 02:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started to notice the "shorter" reviews. I've been nominating a lot of X-Files articles, and, for the longest time, I was used to longer ones like this, given by Glimmer721. However, I've started to only get ones like this, usually only telling me to change "critic" to "television critic" or the like. And I know there's usually SOME prose errors, so I go over them again, by myself, or ask Grapple X (a fellow X-Files editor) to give it a second opinion. Granted (and maybe its arrogant of me to assume), I feel my articles are GA worthy, so I don't think a total GA Reassessment is needed, it's just frustrating.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I really think we need to consider asking TBrandley to stop reviewing. He's also a less-than-ideal nominator, too; for instance, he just chose to ignore a review I did for him. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm slowly going through his reviews drive-wise, and I'm finding more poor ones that are being fixed by other reviewers than decent ones. The fact that he gave a review for Google Chrome in less than 20 minutes after tagging it for review speaks volumes (too long to be reviewed that fast). At a minimum, I'm not giving him credit for the drive on his reviews unless he can provide an extremely compelling reason that we are all missing. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are going ask him to stop, you should do so soon; he's currently in a race for third place, has added five reviews in the past seven hours, and is the most frequent person updating the leaderboard (numbers/place only, not time). The drive ends in 25.75 hours, which allows for enough additional reviews to give him a seeming shot at first place given the current rate of accretion. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this editor's reviews were too brief. I came across Talk:Green Lantern (film)/GA1 a few days ago and pointed out the dead links. I didn't have time to go through the whole article, but I did think there must be something more to fix other than changing critics to media critics. I've just noticed Talk:Cora Cross/GA1 and thought the review was far too brief for a fictional character. I suspect that there are a few prose issues that haven't been brought up, indeed I've mentioned one of them. - JuneGloom Talk 01:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The reviewer does have a tendency to nominate articles without contributing to much as J Milburn has rightly pointed out (see Talk:The X-Files/GA1 for instance), treating the review like a PR, without bothering to make corrections. When reviewing one of my nominated articles, he cited that there wasn't much "meat", whatever that means (thankfully reviewed by another user since) -- Lemonade51 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This "contest" has been a very discouraging experience. Some of the "high scorers" have strings of reviews with "no problems - pass" or the equivalent. Those of us who actually review are the crazy ones. Or stupid! Someone above said there's a rare article that can't be improved. Well, not according to our reviewers! It's quite common, apparently. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. For the next drive there shouldn't be a "leaderboard", and the awards should only be given for a certain amount of articles reviewed (for example the highest being 50), with no special award given to the person with the most articles reviewed. IMO that would partially solve the problem. Albacore (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So, I have a question. If his reviews are not considered good, does that mean that articles like this that he passed will be un-GA'd. If so, that'd stink, since he reviewed a huge number of X-Files articles. Or will it be a case-by-case thing. (In all honesty, I think most of the X-Files articles are very, very good. It was just a coincidence that he passed a huge chunk of them.)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

He's not the only one who has strings of articles that have no problems. Again, some GA expert above said it was a rare event, so how come some reviewers have many, many articles with no problems. (That expert sure is wrong!) I completed 72 reviews, and I think I found one with no problems, but I'm the fool for doing so much work. No more contests for me. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I do agree a leaderboard is unnecessary; this is a collective effort and 'Wikipedia' ultimately is the real winner when you choose to review an article (tad corny I know). Perhaps an award could be given to the one reviewing the most backlogged articles, ensuring consistent reviewing? As for X-Files articles, I don't feel they need to be reassessed; reviewing X-Files episodes are anomalies in this instance. I seldom find much problems from first hand because the style and layout are consistent and prose is of a GA standard. It's just that there are the occasional grammatical error(s), spelling mistakes or needing to conform to the WP:YEAR guideline. When reviewing the main article, it was done with a FAC nomination in mind because that, along with a PR would be the logical step. But TBrandley hardly contributed to it – my main concern, which showed as the user did not bother making corrections. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for you concerns and problems. TBrandley 14:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. TBrandley 14:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It would make me happy if you actually read through the article noting prose concerns instead of spending 15 minutes on a 30kb prose article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I am still fairly new to reviewing. TBrandley 04:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No reason to give up reviewing, but here's a suggestion. The next review you do ask me to take a look at the article when you're done, and see if I agree with your conclusions. Malleus Fatuorum 04:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Talk:William (The X-Files)/GA1 seem okay? TBrandley 05:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems much better, but for small things like "He did however, praised Duchovny's directing" it's far easier to just fix them yourself rather than list them in a review. The lead is pretty garbled as far as I'm concerned, with baby William just tossed in out of the blue; is it "baby William" or "Baby William" anyway? It's also rather awkwardly written in places: "The genesis for the episode was a storyline Duchovny had had during the series eighth season; he had originally pitched an idea ..." looks like a world record attempt on the number of hads in close proximity. The plot section is rather dreadfully written, and needs a good going over by someone who can write English, not just a merging of a few sentences: "Meanwhile, John Doggett (Robert Patrick) is attacked in the X-Filess(?) office. After being knocked down, pursues his assailant." "Doggett arrives with the information that the man is not Daniel Miller....." Why would anyone have supposed that he was? Had he given his name as Daniel Miller? "..Walter Skinner (Mitch Pileggi) meets with Doggett and discusses the idea of the man they captured is Mulder." I could go on and on, it's dreadful. Overall I have two overwhelming impressions. The first is that just on the quality of prose alone this article has a way to go before it should be listed as a GA. The second is that your review comes across as a little superficial; the article in some places verges on the incomprehensible, and that's not something a quick copyedit is going to fix. So I'll repeat the suggestion I made right at the start, which is that rather than list minor issues just fix them yourself, and focus on the bigger stuff like comprehensibility. And as a matter of interest, did you check any of the footnotes to see if they say what it's claimed they do, or if they've been copied from? From your review it looks like all you've done is to examine the formatting of the references, not their substance. For instance, ref #12 is "Kessenich, pp. 203–208", but there's nothing by Kessenich in the Bibliography, which is the sort of thing you ought to be checking. Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I already suggested a copy-edit. Thanks for your comments! TBrandley 15:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum, what do you think of Talk:Pod (sculpture)/GA1, Talk:Widerøe Flight 744/GA1, Talk:Fuiste Tú/GA1, Talk:Millennium (season 2)/GA1, Talk:4-D (The X-Files)/GA1, Talk:John Doe (The X-Files)/GA1, for example? I think the editor was following your advice above and usually found "some issues" like a link needed or suggesting adding a UK airing. Funny thing, I was considering a review of two of the articles he found no problems with, but didn't because of all the problems I saw and my energy was running out. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I would consider Widerøe Flight 744 to be a GA, but since the review took four minutes maximum, I doubt that the article was checked (or even read since the online sources are in Norsk). OK, Google can be used to translate but its pretty poor. I've reviewed quite a lot of Arsenikk's GANs (perhaps a dozen or more over the last four years), and I've never failed one, but I doubt that the statements were checked against the on-line sources (unless TBrandley is a native reader of Norsk - I'm not but I can read a few words and I've got English-Norsk dictionaries at hand). Pyrotec (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The article Fuiste Tú has just over one-third of its references in Spanish, 13 out of 36 and all are on line. Arguably, the article is at or about GA-standard, but the review appears to have taken one minute. Checking of citations appears to be questionable. Pyrotec (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed a couple of Arsenikk's GANs. Nels Nelsen Hill and Papoose Peak Jumps. He's a good article writer, but when he is using non-English sources, such as Nels Nelsen Hill he has more prose problems. Even Papoose Peak Jumps which I passed with no problems, I fixed a few things myself first. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Arsenikk is Norwegian. Yes, he's a good writer of GA's and a good reviewer of GAN's (getting on for 300 reviews). I sometimes tweak his English prose, but his Norwegian outclasses mine. Pyrotec (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment about "William": I'm the nominator, and the prose was pretty sucky now that I see. I just did a hasty write last night, so I apologize for that crap. I believe I've straightened it all out now, and I hope to get Grapple X to give it a quick go-over.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that i see this, i thought it would never happen. I think that both TBrandley and Rp0211 were in a war to win the first place, and Status also fell in that war. I was avoiding Tb's reviews just for alphabetical matters but i knew we would eventually find such issues. As i said to Rp when he asked me if he could take the reviews and do them later (just to win), i enjoy to see the competitive effort, but that competitiveness cannot overcome the quality of the reviews. The fastest of my reviews took me some 6 hours and were Gen.Quon articles and i did them after fixing some minor issues on prose by myself. I was totally surprised when i saw TB's review of Google Chrome just some minutes (hours?) after he took the article (considering that such article would take days) and became suspicious. Also, several users went to me and presented their concerns about the reviews of him, Rp and Status alltogether. —Hahc21 01:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This latest drive has turned out to be a rather damaging debacle really, and someone needs to review all of those very quick passes. And until there are better quality control processes put in place there should be no more of these drives. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Although i proposed several quality controls that were rejected because they imposed limits on how much articles a single user could review or such. I like drives because they bring good reviewers and new users with potential and help us reduce the backlog. I will be developing a new way to make drives to be sure all (or most) reviews are good. —Hahc21 02:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Quality and quantity rarely combine well. I made a graph File:Good Article Backlog graph 2011.jpg a little while ago that showed that the backlog reduction from these drives is short-lived. I am thinking that we might just have to accept that some articles are just going to take a while to get reviewed or introduce more permanent methods. I personally think limiting the number of nominations a single person can have is a step in the right direction, but this has been discussed quite a few times in the past with no consensus reached. AIRcorn (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've attempted my first GAR here, and would appreciate a lookover, and any appropriate clue-by-fours. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved and learning the system. It looks like you got the hang of it. However, I noticed two further things I would have asked about: (1) File:Cauer.jpg is a non-free image but it is not clear who the copyright holder (the Source parameter is just a deadlink) and (2) The lead should be improved as it mostly just discusses electronic filters rather than "summarize the body of the article". I hope this helps. maclean (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll make sure those get taken care of, that is very helpful indeed! --j⚛e decker^talk 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have two incomplete reviews from the Backlog elimination drive. They both are awaiting 2nd opinions: Talk:Angampora/GA1 and Talk:Roses in Portland/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Per common sense, i can say this: If the 2nd opinion is not made before July 31, they might be removed from the count. I know this seems a little unfair, so i can recommend you to make a decision wether you feel it pass or not and close the review (if you still want it to count). Anyway, they can be renominated again. Although, could any user help TTT and take a look at the articles and bring some additional comments of the articles? —Hahc21 21:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I need someone to pick this up. It's been on review for almost a month, and the reviewer is frequently editing but not taking part in the review at all. All the issues they pointed out were fixed almost two weeks ago. Statυs (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the reviewer did 20 minutes of editing half an hour before you posted this and nothing since, a single edit five days prior, and then a bunch of edits back on July 13. A ping to the reviewer's talk page is the usual step when the reviewer hasn't responded to recent events, and proved fruitful earlier in this review. I don't see a response from you to the reviewer's last comment on July 12; that also might attract attention. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Stumbled by this as it had broken the formatting... is the reviewer's stance acceptable? igordebraga ≠ 17:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's completely unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, more bizarre action with this thing. I have no clue what the hell is going on with the GA templates. HELP!--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your question is somewhat vague. I assume that you were "content" (possibly not the word you had in mind) with the review being closed, so I closed it properly. The reviewer did not appear to know about second opinions. Your best course of action is probably to renominate it at WP:GAN and hope that a different reviewer picks it second time round. Pyrotec (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not "content" with that fail rationale and was wanting the second opinion. The problem is the template was changed to request a second opinion by an editor other than the reviewer a week ago, and GA bot did not update this page with the request. There a way to restore this to where it will validly request the second opinion?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The reviewer "failed" it (but is more correctly "not listed") with these two edits first and second, but the second one was not done correctly. I suggest that you either immediately renominate the article at WP:GAN, or dispute the findings by submitting it to WP:GAR (in that case follow the community reassessment instructions). Note: it does not have to be the reviewer that requests the second opinion, it can be the nominator, but since the reviewer has closed the review that in effect is the end of that review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I am renominating it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be appropriate to renominate an article after it was failed after a constructive critique that was ignored by the nominator. Nominator did nothing to act on suggestions for improvement after sufficient time to do so, and I failed it. Nominator's renomination should be considered (at a minimum) bad faith.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Your review was disruptive. Best to let it be reviewed by someone who's reviewed a few before. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What @Wizardman said. I'm not really seeing the constructive critique of the article. If I was the nominator, I'd have struggled to identified what the reviewer wanted done to the article in order to get it passed. "Poorly written" doesn't offer much of a starting point for going forward if no examples are provided. --LauraHale (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added dance to other theatre, film and drama as it seems to have been overlooked. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

While it was already covered in the very last section of Wikipedia:Good articles/Theatre, film and drama ("Theatre, musical theatre, dance and opera"), perhaps the change might encourage more dance GA nominations. GRAPPLE X 00:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It was I who added dance to that section. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to notify any bots? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake then. I would assume so as they would probably need to be altered to post nominations to "Theatre, film, dance and drama" and not "Theatre, film and drama". GRAPPLE X 01:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I am reverting. This sort of change needs to be planned ahead of time; at the moment, none of the "Other" nominated articles are showing up. First step was to revert the "guidelines"; if that doesn't work, I'll revert the GAN page header. The change can be done later in an orderly fashion that does not break the page in so dramatic a fashion. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

All the missing "Other" articles are back. I had to also revert the headers on the main WP:GAN page, and I reinstated a recent version of the "Other" articles to prime the pump. Note that the Hip hop dance article that seems to have inspired this change has been withdrawn by its nominator, which is why it isn't showing up with them on the page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an idea: a QPQ list for GA reviews. We create a page where a number of articles are listed. An editor begins a review of an article at the top of this list (one of the oldest ones, preferably the oldest while making allowances for expertise/interest). Once the GA review is finished, the reviewer may add an article he/she nominated to the bottom of the list. Articles are removed from the list once a review begins. Any thoughts?--Batard0 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That could be good. Some reviews have been on there since April 2012. However, what it someone would to choose. Good thought! TBrandley 21:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not like that idea for QPQ, as that would limit which articles the editor could review. I would prefer if the editor could choose any article to review. Dough4872 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you could choose not to participate in QPQ if none of the articles listed by people who've reviewed other articles are interesting to you. I'm not suggesting this as an alternative to the current system, just something people could opt for if they wished.--Batard0 (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't like that idea either. There are not infrequently very good reasons why some articles languish for months. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers are already encouraged to review the older nominations; I fail to see why this method will help solve the problem of languishing articles. As Malleus has said, there are often good reasons for articles not finding reviewers. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would solve the problem of languishing articles by giving people who nominate a direct incentive to review instead of nominating articles and waiting for someone to pick them up. If there are good reasons for articles not finding reviewers, the system should address that somehow if we want to eliminate the backlog. I've seen plenty of articles that are of good quality but don't get reviewed for months, likely either because they're long or there's not wide interest in the subject matter.--Batard0 (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose leads to rubberstamping of articles. --Rschen7754 00:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful that this would lead to rubber-stamping any more than, say, a review drive does.--Batard0 (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't support review drives fully, either, for the same reason. --Rschen7754 21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither do I, and I've never taken part in one. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is (or can be) a trade off in quality versus quantity. It looks like some reviewers selected short articles (some US Roads, some sports articles and others - see below) and spent in some cases one minute, four minutes reviewing them and gave little or no justification for passing or failing them. Some of these nominations were only in the queue for 30 minutes, before being selected. Other reviewers spent several days reviewing articles that were long and had been in the queue for many months (some going back to January) and produced extensive reviews. It was noticeable that some of the reviewers reviewing large numbers of nominations with little or no corrective actions were being asked by nominators to review more articles. So far I've reviewed about 80 of these reviews (and the associated articles), and it many cases the nominations appear to be no more than "rubber stamped"; however, there were also a good number of reviews where that was clearly not true. Yes, overall the quality of the reviews does fall during these backlog drives, but it does shorter the list and it does bring in reviewers, some of how choose to stay. The problem of the long queues is that most of the time 10% of the nominations are being reviewed, 10% are On Hold and 80% are just waiting: there are not enough reviewers doing reviews. I oppose "you review mine I'll review yours" (and its variants) and I also dislike these backlog drives, but since I typically review 10 to 20 nominators every month I sign up. QPQ is just a variant of "you review mine I'll review yours". Pyrotec (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You may remember that a few years ago some of us fought long and hard for the right to have that little green blob on the article page, including a Garguantan sweeps drive to remove those articles that clearly didn't meet the GA criteria. I feel that those of us who took part in that effort are now being let down by this decline in the quality of reviews, which QPQ will simply accelerate. Perhaps soon even I will be arguing that the green blob should be removed, as it's come to mean nothing. Malleus Fatuorum 22:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I came in at the end of GA Sweeps, so I did only almost 50 (well 90 % of 50). The problem is that I suspect that is insufficient will to run another GA Sweeps. There were certain areas (which I don't need to name) where doggy reviews were taking place but it seems to be spreading outwards: and the "look, I can do 10 reviews in one hour" reviewer is now a hero. Pyrotec (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As a roads editor, I spot-check a lot of the GAN reviews for U.S. roads for this reason (see my userpage for more). --Rschen7754 22:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone who took part in that sweeps effort would volunteer for another one; I know that I certainly wouldn't anyway. It was bloody hard and thankless work, which it now seems to me is being undermined by these endless drives and QPQ proposals. I'm very much afraid that we wasted our time, and that those who were so critical of GA will soon be proved right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed a few US roads myself at GAN (but not recently) and I'm sorry but I find them quite monotonous to review. I've checked some good reviews here, for example Talk:Minnesota Drive Expressway/GA1 (but, I'm not too sure about the Lead in this one) & Talk:Old Baltimore Pike/GA1; and these two reviews are almost as long as the articles themselves. However, for example, Old Baltimore Pike is the type of short well-referenced article that I'd choose to review if I wanted to gain a high number of reviews in a backlog drive. Although I referred to US roads by name, it was not the (unnamed) topic that I was referring to as "where doggy reviews were taking place". I'm happy to make that clear. Pyrotec (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's fine, I find them difficult to review at times too. But it's the <10 mile roads that cause the problems... editors frequently grab 4-5 of them, do crummy reviews, and rubber-stamp the whole thing. --Rschen7754 23:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And as for the speed of reviews, I doubt that even when I was reviewing regularly and cherry-picking from articles nominated by editors such as Ealdgyth I could have got through more than two or three in a day. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, someone took violent offence to me failing one of their WP's GA-articles, it was worst than that they only had six GAs and they lost the lot due to lack of citations - and that particular article has never been fixed and resubmitted. I did 88 reviews once in a one-month drive (and then burnt out for several months): I would have been very happy to have 88 Ealdgyth's nominations to review - I don't think I did more than three reviews in one day, the problem is that you have to do 2 or 3 every day for a whole month; and then I think the the copyvio mud slinging started. Pyrotec (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Even Ealdgyth's reviews need work though, because she's pretty much always aiming for FA, so it's a stepping stone, and she's looking for the next step. Her articles could mostly just be rubber-stamped for GA, but that's not what she wants. And I could say the same about a lot of other good GA nominators, who I won't embarrass by naming. Suffice to say that theirs are the articles I used to pluck out of the queue. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I put up a simple mockup of the idea on my user page.--Batard0 (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's good to generate ideas and try innovations. However, I don't see how this QPQ list would be sustainable. Maybe I don't fully understand it. Would the list be constantly refreshed with older noms (at the top of the list) - or would the reviewer's articles take over it all? If it is constantly refreshed with the oldest noms, what is the incentive to review the article that the reviewer nominated? maclean (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The list is naturally refreshed with the oldest noms rising to the top. If I choose to review number 5 on the list, for example, I immediately delete it from the list when I start the review on the main GAN page. When that happens, number 6 moves to number 5 and so forth. Every older nom moves up a spot. It's still possible that older noms could sit around unreviewed for some time because people don't pick them up, but if there are 10 or so in the list, there's a decent chance someone will select your nomination. It's at the very least better than the odds of having an article picked from the main page, which has 200-odd articles waiting for review. The incentive structure is simple: if you review an article on the list, you get the right to put your own nomination on the QPQ list, which makes it more likely to be reviewed. I'm not sure I understand what wouldn't be sustainable about it...Obviously to get the ball rolling you'd have to simply select some articles for review, but from there it theoretically would roll ahead on its own. I also want to make clear that this would be an adjunct to the GANs, not in any way a replacement.--Batard0 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also add that we could have it so if your article is picked up in the usual way on GAN outside of the QPQ process, you retain the right to put a nomination on the QPQ list in future without having to review another article. So if I review Tropic Thunder from QPQ and then put my article Badminton on the QPQ list, but Badminton is picked up in GAN before a QPQ reviewer does, I can still in future post a nomination to QPQ citing Tropic Thunder...Maybe this is too complex.--Batard0 (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Without going into all the details, the idea of a QPQ system as outlined by Batard0 seems like a really good idea. The present DYK system may be an indicator of how to do it. You can select your article to review and if you're new to the process you don't have to do it at all. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose—This sounds like instruction creep to me. What's wrong with the current system? QPQ reviewing isn't exactly viewed in the most favorable light; nominators with a poor grasp of the criteria should not be forced to review and potentially promote articles just to get their own articles reviewed and potentially promoted. Yes, we should encourage editors to review other articles, but we shouldn't give the appearance that we require it. Even if participation in a QPQ list is made optional, not everyone will understand that distinction and begin to assume that it is required. Unlike DYK, promotion here is a one-person process. DYK requires an additional volunteer to promote a nominated hook into a prep area, giving the potential for a double check of the review. The prep areas and queues are also sitting there so others can review them, meaning there's plenty of opportunity to catch problematic articles/hooks before they hit the Main Page and become a DYK. With GAN, if a reviewer promotes something, it's listed at WP:GA and it's a GA; it's up to someone to initiate a GAR to delist it, not prevent its listing in the first place. Sorry, there's a semantic difference between the two processes that requires some level of competency. Encourage reviews, but don't give any indication, real or potential, that reviews are required. Imzadi 1979 → 21:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Just as Imzadi1979 said. QPQ will make pople to erroneously understand that they need to review an article to get their article reviewed, and that's not what the GA process is intended to be and, if stablished, will damage-hell the process to a level where maybe the GAR process will become the backlogged one. I see that this QPQ iniciative could help the oldest articles reviewed, but it needs substantial work and another apporach to finally achieve its goal without harming more than what it would help. Regards. —Hahc21 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see what this would achieve; make the QPQ compulsory and you end up with a massive amount of half-arsed, poor reviews (judging from what i've seen at DYK and it will only be worse here), make it optional and that's no different to the current system - Basement12 (T.C) 23:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am pretty sure this is not supposed to be compulsory. AIRcorn (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• leaning Oppose - I think the drives are doing a fair effort. I think the process self-selects for interesting and accessible articles, with folks reviewing same, which is possibly how it should be (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Maybe QPQ happens here to a certain extent anyway so this is not a necessarily bad idea. I do not think it will encourage any worse reviews than what we had in the recent backlog elimination drive and will possibly result in a more sustainable reduction in the backlog. Of course that is a reason not to have backlog drives as much as an endorsement of this idea. AIRcorn (talk) 04:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Question I do QPQ anyways, but what about a system where QPQ only comes into affect after a certain number of concurrent nominations? For example, if you only nominate one or two articles at once, then there's no need to review another article, but if you have 5+ (or whatever number), then it becomes required to review at least one article (and one more for each article over the magic number). That way, a newbie or a person who isn't active enough on GA doesn't have to review another nomination, but the benefits of QPQ are still somewhat tapped. Like DYK, there can be a link to whichever articles the person reviews, so it can be quick and easy to distinguish anyone doing poor-quality reviews (which might also suggest that their nominations are also of substandard quality, but that's a different point entirely) Canadian Paul 23:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose primarily because some people just don't have the knowledge base or personal capacity to review certain complex article topics. I know I've looked at a few prospects and been incredibly intimidated by them. Keeping it all voluntary works okay; people tend to review articles in the same areas they submit them, and are sometimes motivated to clear a few out of the list where they're adding their own nominations. DYK is a lot simpler process, as the nominations tend to be pretty short and easy to check. Also, there is a bit of a rush to get them done, as the idea is to have fresh additions to the project appearing on the front page. GANs can be delayed without major problems. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Trial if it were the case that this was a meta-process, that did not take any nominations away from the main board, and if someone was willing to act as co-ordinator and monitor the reviews that went though - looking for any examples of poor quality reviews, and if we took as the test set, the, say, five current oldest articles, then I'll be willing to get involved in a, say, month-long, informal trial-run on a hacked together page in someone's userspace, and I'd be happy to also be a 'reserve reviewer' to do a second opinion at short notice if the co-ordinator judged something needed redoing. If you can find me just four other editors willing to try something informal, I'll get involved. Fayedizard (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, just to formalise my view from above. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Another proposal

What if the proposal is modified so that one can pick any article on the list. New nominators who have nominated under five successful articles are encouraged, but not required to review articles yet. This means reviewing will be mandatory only for those who have sufficient experience (five good articles) and at the same time it would significantly reduce the workload. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Although the idea is good, i consider that there's differences between writing good articles and reviewing good article nominations. I've known many GA writers that avoid reviewing because they believe they are not ready yet to take the reviewer job, and if reviewing will be mandatory for those with more than 5 GAs for each article they nominate, i'm sure they will feel discouraged, IMHO. —Hahc21 15:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1 - what happens when we have rubber stamping of articles. --Rschen7754 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I've seen this in the drive and I consider it is needed a talk about this matter. The Good article criteria says that an article is subject of a quick fail if "contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations." Now, on the 6 points an article must meet to become a Good Article, nothing about copyright violations and close paraphrasing is mentioned. The issue is the next: It is obvious that an article must not contain close paraphrasing without the proper quotation and inline citation. Now, if the sources are off-line and the contributor decided to copy the exact information they're citing within quotations as part of the references, it is still considered copyright violation? I went in and overlooked the fact that the references on some articles such as Big Painting No. 6 and Drowning Girl were a bit extensive, but only though that the contributor wanted all readers to be able to read the original text for verifiability purposes. WP:NFC says that "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." but it applies for the entire article or just the article body? Does the references section fall into this assumption? Also, WP:REF says that "A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source, if this may be of interest (this is particularly useful if the source is not easily accessible)." So, on a GAN basis, how we may proceed? Regards. —Hahc21 21:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• well, the template does (one of the many reasons for using it).

Maybe GA needs to decide some of these issue that reoccur. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally reproduction of copyrighted material for the purpose of quotation isn't considered a copyright violation, if the portion of reproduced material is adequate for the purpose. That leaves some amount of judgment, which is the reviewer's duty to make, but overall there is nothing wrong with quoting sources with proper attribution. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Matthew: copyright violations are alluded to right at the beginning. 1a (in the reasonably well written section) says "respects copyright laws" with a link to WP:COPYVIO: it's perhaps a bit obscurely phrased, but it's definitely in there. Maybe it needs to be spelled out more clearly, although WP:RGA and WP:GACR both list copyright violations and close paraphrasing as reasons to quickfail. The amount of quoted material is another matter, which gets into fair use and how necessary the material is to the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, this seems like a recent addition; people might not be aware of it yet. --Rschen7754 23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The 1a clause on copyvio was added last summer; the quickfail criteria added this April. New reviewers absolutely should have known about it, and anyone using templates like the above, or having templates used on reviews of their own GANs, should have as well. I first encountered it on GAN submissions last August. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• The purpose of respecting copyrights is to refrain from infringing on the creator's ability to profit from his/her work. If large quotes from an author's work on a particular subject is quoted from their work, and especially when other large quotes from the same author is used across several articles, then I believe it violates the spirit and the law of copyvio. In the cases such as I Can See the Whole Room...and There's Nobody in It!, Look Mickey, Golf Ball, Girl with Ball, Torpedo...Los!, Portrait of Madame Cézanne, Artist's Studio—Look Mickey, and other related articles, the quotes seem as large as the article, especially as there are two non free images in these articles. There is no reason why the editor could not have taken the time to understand the quotes and reworded them in his original wording. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes but my question is still unanswered. How do we evaluate the existence on copyvio on references as long as those on these articles? The fact that the quotes are kind of too long is a reasong to quickfail the article? or a reson to fail it per 1(a) or no reason to fail it? My confusion lies within the fact that such extensive quotes appear on the references section, or that is irrelevant? —Hahc21 16:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be hard pressed to say some of those examples respect copyright law, or the idea that the use of the quotes is to reference information. The first example I looked at is at Big Painting No. 6, cite 4. The text of the article is:

The source for the entire Brushstrokes series was Charlton Comics' Strange Suspense Stories 72 (October 1964) by Dick Giordano.[4][5]".

The citation quotes:

"Begun in the autumn of 1965, Lichtenstein's series of Brushstroke paintings was initiated after he saw a cartoon in Charlton Comics' Strange Suspense Stories. 72 (October 1964). One scene shows an exhausted yet relieved artist who has just completed a painting. This depicts two massive brushstrokes that take up the entire surface area. The absurdity of using a small paintbrush to create an image of two monumental brushstrokes was explored in many different variations. Transforming an expressive act that was mythologized for its immediacy and primal origins into a cartoon-like, mechanically produced-lookiing image. Lichtenstein created a reflexive commentary on gestural painting."

Three of the four sentences are plainly unnecessary in terms of providing verification. Speaking far more in someone else's voice rather than our own is often a signal of a copyright issue. Whether it's a quick or slow fail, I'll leave to the GA regulars to decide, but it's surely a problem. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO if the quotes are obviously more extensive then needed for the purpose of citation (that is: to verify the statement), this is an issue with 1(a) criterion. Otherwise it is not an issue at all. In this particular case it is an issue, as all unnecessary parts of the text should be replaced with [...]. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, some of my concenrs have been explained already, but some others are not. The first one. Clause 1(a), when defining prose, it includes the references or only the article body? The references are only covered by Clause No.2? —Hahc21 01:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oakley77 was blocked for socking around their ban. The sock, 72.184.164.159 (talk), which has been blocked for a month, nominated 14 articles for GA status. While several had the nominations removed without action, others are still pending/holding and many more were failed.

• Delisted: Chongqing, Bougainville Campaign, People's Republic of China–Pakistan relations, FC Girondins de Bordeaux, Algiers
• On hold: Aaron
• Pending: Deforestation in Democratic Republic of the Congo – Barbados at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games
• Failed: Kea – Utah – Embassy of Uzbekistan, Washington, D.C. – .рф – Fargo, North Dakota – Air Berlin

I know nothing about GAN, its policies or its guidelines; if the fails are void because a banned editor made the nominations; or if the pending nominations still have to go through the process because they were nominated. This project should be aware of their origins, however. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting us know. Under the circumstances, as long as 72.184.164.159 was not involved in otherwise editing the articles or doing anything beyond nominating them, I think the two pending nominations should be undone immediately, which I shall do as soon as I submit this. I'll look into the one that's On hold after that, and probably leave a note in the review pointing here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In line with Wikipedia:Deny recognition, I support deleting the reviews with apologies to the reviewers who wasted their time. maclean (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of the comments might be useful for people hoping to improve the article - maybe move the comments to talk? --Rschen7754 04:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I left a note for ThaddeusB in the Aaron review. The two pending nominations were reverted earlier. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I get another look at this? A second opinion has been given, but it doesn't actually seem to address the issue(s) at hand. Further, it has just a slight whiff of the pop-music-GAC-controversy that has risen its head a few times with regards to the same reviewers passing each others articles. I'm not looking to accuse anyone of anything, I'm just trying to be careful. The second opinion has done little to reassure me that the article is at GA standard... J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

J Milburn, with all due respect, I think you are very rigorous with GA nominations. It is a simple pop song and the prose does not really need to be perfect. Czarkoffs point is rather curious and minor. It easily meets the criteria for WP:GA?, which does not state that the prose should be excellent. The nominator clearly stated that "I have tried many times searching for information about the original recording but nothing has come up. Stevie Hoang is an independent artist so I'm not suprised there isn't any reliable sources about his version. ", so why did you request a second opinion? Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am rigorous, I don't just want to rubber-stamp whatever's nominated. And yes, I know he said that he couldn't find any more information; my worry is that more information's needed, whether he can find it or not- equally, if we had a three line stub about a minor athlete because no more information was available, we wouldn't be promoting. "Oh, sorry, I couldn't work out a way not to violate copyright." "Oh, that's alright then- I'll just promote. Thanks for trying." Just because a nominator is unable to do something, does not mean that the article does not need it. J Milburn (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that there's a fairly clear consensus against me, and my concern is not a legitimate objection to promotion to GA status. I will close the review now. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

J, i've seen your reviews and you shouldn't worry of the "rubber-stamp" drama thing. Your reviews are good. Just note that if the nominator is unable to fin information and you, doing a search are unable too to do so [at hand] it may be a sign that no further information may be available for the article. Although offline sources exist, online ones are a good indicator. Regards. —Hahc21 16:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. My concern was not that certain sources hadn't been utilised, but that certain necessary details (published or not) were not included; regardless, consensus is clearly against me in this case. J Milburn (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems I missed something I believed to be important. Not only the infobox continues to list one person under two distinct names, but the whole background issue remains controversial. I wouldn't pass this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I was reviewing Elementary algebra and then I found that the editors used textbook language, such as "Let's" which would be changed to "Let us," but that means let me teach you. Article sounds a lot like a Wikiversity page. I would appreciate a second opinion on this. Obtund^Talk 19:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a vague memory that there is (or at least was) a MOS page that endorsed this as normal for mathematics articles. Someone at WP:WikiProject Mathematics should be able to tell you what they recommend these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There has been a recent attempt on the GAN page to change the "Episodes" subtopic of the "Theatre, film and drama" topic to "Television". However, there was no coordination made with the GA bot. As a result, the initial implementation emptied out the Episodes section for a bit, and while things were eventually settled, the GA bot still doesn't know about "Television": it's calling the section "Episodes", and when someone today helpfully changed the subtopic on for a couple of their television character article nominations from "Theatre, film and drama" to "Television", the nominations disappeared from the GAN page.

This isn't good. Changes in topics or subtopics should simply not be made to the GAN page until the GA bot can be modified to deal with such changes, and the ramifications for such changes need to be thought through better. It still says "Fictional characters" belong under "Theatre, film and drama", but does that count for television characters? What about such characters who have appeared in television and later in film?

It's the second time we've had this kind of disruptive attempted change recently; the last one was a change of "Theatre, film and drama" to "Theatre, film, dance and drama", which caused around 40 nominations to disappear until it was unwound. Perhaps there needs to be a notice in the "Nomination topics and subtopics" section that any changes to topics or subtopics must be discussed here first: that would head off the problems we've been having.

For now, my suggestion would be to revert to the status quo of "Episodes" until this can be discussed, and if changes are needed, then the implementation be planned with the GA bot owner. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I warned the user Gimmetoo (talk · contribs) who originally made the change. I told him it would screw up the bot. We should do something, I suggested contacting the bot's owner, but. Two nominees are not appearing. Bad. TBrandley 17:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The two nominees are back under "Theatre, film and drama"; if there are others, their talk pages can be fixed so they'll reappear. (Articles with bad subtopics either appear in Miscellaneous, or keep showing up as new in the page's history but not appearing on the page until someone adjusts their talk page GA nominee subtopic.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Later: I have implemented my suggestion: the reversion to "Episodes". Anyone who feels strongly that a change is needed is welcome to make their proposal of what should be done here, and if consensus is achieved, we'll need to work it out with Chris G, so he can adjust GA bot as needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "Television" - "Theatre, film and drama" split. I am surprised that the bot stopped working, headings have been changed in the past with no issues (for example it used to say "Other Theatre, film and drama" before the reverting started [4], but the bot is still doing its thing now). Did the nominations disappear completely or did they end up in Miscelleanous? As for the non-episode television articles I don't think that will be a major problem. They can just be split to Television actors (characters)/Film actors (characters). If they have appeared in both then the nominator can choose which one they want. Most are more known as one or the other and it is not too much of an issue if a television actor appears in "Theatre, film and drama". AIRcorn (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like the idea; I think it could be made to work. The problem is that if you put the new categories up before the bot knows about them, they don't show up under Miscellaneous but disappear entirely. Nominators, following the instructions, will think that these are the correct categories, use them, and find that their articles are not showing up at GAN. The combination of being listed in the topics/subtopics box and not being known by the bot is problematic, and seems to result in the nominations ending up in limbo: the bot tries to add them, and puts in the history that it is doing so, but there's no place to put them so it ultimately doesn't (and doesn't use Miscellaneous). And continues retrying every ten minutes.

It just means some planning: we decide here how the changes should look—new subtopics, new descriptions within each topic section in the main list, etc. Someone arranges with Chris G for the bot changes, and then (and here's where I'm a little vague on the actual details) the revised bot and new/changed subtopics are introduced at the same time. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to make this page editable only by the bot and its owner? That would eliminate the problems of this kind. — — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

hello,

please revert back to the plain blue internal links as it is hard to read... Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 07:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved party take a look at Talk:Roses in Portland/GA2 and determine if it should be closed and reopened at WP:GAR? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'd say just do the review, given the way the last one went down and the discussion at the current one. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Viriditas (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What is going on with this edit to Talk:Ted_Frank/GA2. Why is it being redirected?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm i think it was redirected because oif the info contained in there. take a look for yourself to see what was going on in that page. It was supposed to be a reassessment influenced by a hard POV and a lot of "nonsense" talk. I haven't read the entire page, if you do, please get back here if you find something suspicious. Regards. —Hahc21 04:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any reason that it should be blanked. Have asked DR Blofeld to comment here. AIRcorn (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The reason is that Mr. IP address did it out of spite. The issues which he brought up have been addressed and Mr. IP address is no longer interested in the GA rereview now he has got what he wanted. Its pointless continuing from here. It should never have been reopened anyway and no fair minded reviewer would see any POV or issues with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

As i've seen in the last drive, we had some problems with the quality of the reviews and the so-called "quick passess" and "rubber-stamp" reviews. To avoid such situations i developed this new strategy to make sure the reviews goes as usual and the articles passed do really meet the GA criteria. How this will work?

Fixed proposal without the stroke text

1. The drive will be divided into 2 groups, the Reviewers and the Verifiers.

   1. The reviewers will be the group tasked with reading the article and pointing the issues at the GA review page. They are the common group of users dedicated to reviewing articles, usually named participants in past drives, and they will choose which articles want to review and, eventually, do the review. Reviewers will have a review limit of 5 reviews per day and a limit of 5 open reviews. If a user violates this rule, they could automatically be disqualified from the drive. Any user can sign up as a reviewer.
   2. The verifiers will be the group tasked with checking that the review goes as usual. If a review is not correctly made, the verifier might ask the original reviewer to re-review the article or ask a second user to re-review the article. For a user to be signed as a verifier, they must have reviewed at least 50 GAs in the past, had no isssues regarding a considerable quantity of their reviews, and have been involved in the GA process for at least 6 months. It is recommended that all verifiers have nominated some articles and had them reach GA status. The verifiers have no review limit and such status will be granted by the drive's coordinators within seven days before the official start of the drive. Such coordinator(s) are automatically included into the verifiers list, although they are not bound to verify articles by themselves.

I consider that with some changes as above, we will improve the quality of the reviews without discouraging users to participate in the drive and so the don't have to go onto a big reassessment process for the next time. Oh, and by the way, this August, the barnstars to all participants of the last drive will be awarded; Cheers! —Hahc21 02:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Additional comment for clarity: As i suppose will happen, i will clarify the role of the verifier a bit further. After the reviewer reviews the article, points the issues and the nominator fixes them, the verifier checks both the articles and review page (not needed to be comprehensive) and gives the "good to go" signal for passing or failing the article. That means that the reviewer is the one who will close the review, not the verifier. The difference here is that the reviewer will need the approval of a verifier to close the review. This way, we avoid rubber stamp reviews and quick passes, and automatically have a second opinion for all articles reviewed. Along with the 5-article-limit, this will ensure that all articles will be gradually verified within the drive's timespan, and so, as a consecuence, we'll avoid long GAR and delisting processess that nobody likes. —Hahc21 02:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought behind this, but you're placing additional restrictions above and beyond what is normal on a regular day. I'd eliminate any "prize" for the person who does the greatest number of reviews. Imzadi 1979 → 02:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, i was thinking about that too. I think that I will keep only the awards until 25 reviews and no special prize for "the winner". That may do the trick too. Thanks. —Hahc21 02:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why there's a difference between the qualifications for verifiers and trusted users. Presumably, both should have excellent reviewing skills, enough so they're trusted to both do their own quality reviews and to check that other reviews are of appropriate quality. Having three categories, and the trusted one vaguely defined (and only there to allow them to review without limit).

Incidentally, speaking of limits, might I suggest that each reviewer—even trusted ones—is allowed to have a maximum number of active reviews, in addition to whatever daily maximums apply? This doesn't count ones that are on hold or awaiting a second opinion, but ones that say "onreview" in the GA nominee template.

Finally, unless there's an active (and sufficiently large) crop of verifiers, the backlog could grow very quickly: if the recent drive is any indication, they'll have an average of 25 completions a day to verify. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the qualifications for trusted users and verifiers are the same, and any trusted user may be automatically considered a verifier. About the 25/day, i think those are not good numbers. Look, on 30 days, the drive took over some 500 articles, so if we had only one verifier, he might check some 16 articles per day (and only those who are awaiting for approval). So, if we had 16 active verifiers, each one would just need to check 1 article per day, which is great. —Hahc21 00:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where you get the 500 number. My count of the page was over 750, and that was made after the remaining uncompleted (on hold) reviews had been deleted. At 30 days, that's 25 a day, so you ought to plan for that number; odds are it'll be that busy for the first week or two at a minimum. Having 16 active verifiers would be great (and most would have to do two a day if they actually verified daily), but I'm not sure how you'd get so many, looking at the lists of reviewers this time; not everyone is going to want to verify (as witness this time, where you have five verifiers, three of whom are verifying at the level you'd need). If you're lucky, it'll be more like three verifications a day per person (with nine full-time-equivalent verifiers); unlucky, more. Do you think an hour per verifier every day sounds about right for three a day, on average? How long is it taking per review check now? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well i was just rounding the numbers to a proposed 500 standard, as this drive had more reviews than the last three. I would expect to have 10 verifiers. Talking about the daily mark, i consider that checking each article would take no more than 10 minutes: verifiers are not boud to re-review the article but to verify that a proper review has been made, and that's not too complicated. I know that the first week will be hard to check, but verifiers are expected to be done within the last day of the drive, so i'm not taking into consideration the idea that verifiers will check articles at the same rhythm at which they are reviewed. —Hahc21 01:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this will work if there's any significant delay in the verification step, which seems to be what your final sentence is implying. It's not fair to the people whose articles are being reviewed that they might have to wait several days or even weeks between that review seeming to be done and it actually being verified as done and the GA awarded. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Revised proposal

I designed a revised proposal with several changes to make more explicit the purpose of this metodology and avoid ambiguous interpretations. I wanna think if, as it is, it can be implemented on all future drives (if any) that would take place at GAN. Regards. —Hahc21 02:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh. Seems unnecessarily complicated. Who is reviewing, passing and failing articles is there for everyone to see at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012#Totals — that's transparent reporting. I'd be more worried about the ones not being reported. You can have more active "Reviewers" next time but there is no need for a holding pen. How about something more positive, like a newcomer-award or a (self-identified) newbie category? Or if you want to go with the points route, give half point for having a review reviewed by one of the reviewers. That drive was a good learning experience and I hope it recruited some people who will stay on. maclean (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Revised proposal #2

I made several twists on the proposal. Now, it only stands for the next:

1. The drive will be divided into reviewers and verifiers.
2. The reviewers will have a review limit of 5 reviews per day.
3. The verifiers have no review limit.

What i have changed is the fact that reviewers will indeed close the review, and then the verifier will do the check, just like it works now. The main difference is that the reviewers group will have a review limit, and the verifiers won't. —Hahc21 17:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the wording reads that all participants have a limit, and then contradicts the statement by adding that verifiers do not have a limit. Why not simply say that reviewers have a limit of five, but verifiers do not? And why not add a limit to the number of open reviews (not including held or second opinion) that anyone, even verifiers, can have? That keeps folks from hoarding "easy" reviews that they wouldn't be getting to for several days. It does add complexity, which is the best reason against it, but I don't see why people can load up with even five a day if they haven't finished what they've already signed up for. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the proposal to avoid confusion and rewrote it without the stroke text for better reading. I will add the specification of open reviews. How is it now? —Hahc21 20:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't feel that this proposal doesn't do anything to address the perennial problem of bad reviews. Hahc21, i appreciate that you are trying to improve things but this doesn't do it for me. The problem can only be solved by encouraging reviewers who show signs of promise and exposing those with other agendas. Increased bureaucracy won't do this. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What might be more to the point is to make sure that verifiers take on new or quick reviewers right away to see if their work meets reviewing standards. It took forever before some of the more voluminous reviewers last time got a single verification, and only then after complaints were made here about the quality of reviews from the people being reviewed. If some of those red X marks, along with negative points, had been given in the first week, it could have saved a lot of grief later on. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we just gone thru similar discussion a month ago? I think it's time to list this on Wikipedia:Perennial proposals OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It may not be useful but we should make some kind of test to see how it works. I mean, a test drive of 3 days using the method just to see if it is usable or not. If we don't evaluate the proposal in practice, we would never know if it really works or not. Sorry for the late response, i'm on vacations. Regards. —Hahc21 17:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll add a proposal of my own based on what I saw; me and Hahc are going back and forth and I think keeping future drives bare bones will help cut down the backlog while minimizing those abusing it for personal gain. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal #3

I've made a radical twist on two previous versions:

1. Eliminate the backlog elimination drive.
2. Twice a year the interested parties would gather wherever appropriate and award somebody they subjectively consider the best in GA backlog elimination.

— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Although i consider your proposal a good one, drives bring new reviewers who will potentially stay. We cannot be the same reviewers all the time. This last drive showed that. —Hahc21 23:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Awards are still there. Just no pressing period of time and no reason to outperform others particularly on count. Making editors compete for award is good, but the exact period of time is a pressing factor that harms us more then helps us. In effect, the threads above are devoted to discussion of how many editors should duplicate one's work: two or three. With plainly subjective awards and "Upon thoughtful and thorough analysis of everyone's reviews we decided ..." the goal of making more people compete is reached with no side effect of "I like it (and my +1 in the table). Go!" reviews. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The "event" aspect brings people in, especially people who are responsive to deadlines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Deadlines are also there (see the "twice a year" part). The lacking element is count. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The event aspect also brings in people who are only interested in collecting awards. I like this idea as it can be used to reward good reviewers not just fast reviewers. AIRcorn (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, coordinators have reached the conclusion that removing the drives is a no-no yet. Events as such are needed to bring new editors, although new changes will be implemented in the next drive to improve the quality of the reviews. The event aspect help us find new potential great reviewers and we need them. We cannot just erase the drives just because they prompt rubber stamp reviews: Some articles need to wait for months to be reviewed, even if they meet the GA criteria from the moment they were nominated. The verifier-reviewer mode allowed to avoid such bad reviews and people claimed it was unfair making the nom to wait to get their article passed (and it would be just several days); well i consider unfair that we have to wait two-to-three months to get our articles reviewed: that's one reason for the drives to exist. Bad issues are fixed with proposals and improvements over the process, not with scrapping it. I appreciate Czarkoff's proposals, although i think those awards will be only given to those that participate the whole year, and then only longtime collaborators will be awarded, no newcomers. Awards are a way to encourage participation, not quantity of reviews. —Hahc21 02:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Who are the new reviewers? I am not saying there aren't any, but an example or two would help. Most of the names there I have seen around GA a while. I really beleive we have to be careful not to sacrifice quality for quantity, and if the price we pay for that is a backlog then it is a relatively small one. I commend your enthusiasm and am genuinely impressed that you are attempting to work through issues brought up over the drive rather than sweeping them under the carpet, but I do not feel that the drives are accomplishing that much in the long run. They seem to burn out our best reviewers and we end up back where we started in a few weeks (there are already nominations approaching four months to be reviewed). The added verifier level is only likely to drain them even more. Maybe the best way to bring in new reviewers would be to specifically seek out potential reviewers and encourage them to get involved. Has a recruitment drive been attempted before? As to the awards proposal, if it takes off it should include an award for the "best new reviewer". AIRcorn (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course we have. I never saw TBrandley or Rp0211 before the drive. Even myself: I just started working on GAN in February and it was my first drive ever. I still believe that drives are not as bad as some might think, they just need polish. Also, i see drives as an opportunity for the reviewers to gather together in a proper event, alltogether, not as a "elimination of nominations". I consider it an reunion event instead of a proper drive. Maybe, in the future, we could develop our own event, different from a drive, that could work. I like the idea of a gather event and give some awards to the best reviewers, but six months is too long, maybe each 3 months would be better. I don't know. I'm still developing the next drive because as we all know, we cannto just scrap the drives: we have to develop a good sustitute before removing what is implemented now. I hope that the modifications that are planned for the next drive would greatly improve the quality of the reviews; that's my goal. —Hahc21 04:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Rp0211 has been reviewing for a while [5] (although he only resumed again recently, hence why you might not have seen him). TBrandley is probably an example of the potential problems with encouraging new reviewers to join a drive. His reviews have improved substantially since the drive, but not before 60 articles had been given superficial treatment. AIRcorn (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The events remind me to consider picking up a review, rather than just commenting/clerking on others. I only review a couple of articles a year, but I am more likely to pick one up around the time of an event than during other times of the year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

hello,

please answer the following questions:

1. What was the longest ever unreviewed article?
2. How to watch the nomination page without doing it manually?
3. If I place hold in the GA list template, why the bot won't update the current status?
4. Why are links in the several GA entries now external links and how to change that?

Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

(2) no way; (3) it always did, but this doesn't happen immediately. Bot runs every 15 minutes; (4) this can only be changed in the bot's code. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Which external links are you talking about? You can change the links by changing the template {{GANentry}} (Although, they're not "true" external links, because they link back to Wikipedia. They just link to pages that cannot be accessed by regular wikilinks). --Chris 11:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For (2), you can watch the nom page before it's created; when you nominate the article just follow the template's creation link, and watch the page from there without creating it. It's not automatic but it should save you a bit of effort later. GRAPPLE X 11:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The links for the GA entries were external links (cyan-coloured), so it was hard to read. Now it was fixed by the bot I think. Thanks for your suggestion Grapple! I did not know it was possible. However, I would like to know the answer for #1 =). Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, answer for question #1 is kinda hard to find. I dunno. 5 months? :) —Hahc21 21:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess you'd need some sort of database query which searches for edits like this, finds the creation of the matching GA Review page, and compares their dates and times. Do this for every GAN that there's ever been, and there you go! --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

At a guess I would say Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, which was reviewed 147 days after it was nominated (it passed 8 days later). AIRcorn (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to watch GANs for a particular subject area, then something like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Article_alerts#GAN might work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Or more specifically, is it appropriate to quickfail a GAN because "The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. (a) All the sources are books except for twelve sources. (b) There is no way to verify almost all of the sources since they are from books. (c) Five of the online sources were the London Gazette which makes accuracy plausible."

This is in relation to Talk:District Railway/GA1. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason to presume that a source is unverifiable or unreliable simply because it is on paper. (It may be reasonable because of particular details about those books - if they're published by a particularly fringe organisation, for example - but that doesn't sound like it's the case here) Andrew Gray (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Books, despite being less accessible, are frequently more reliable than online sources. The quickfail was completely uncalled for. What has happened to the standard of GA reviews? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a massive misunderstanding of WP:V. Books sources are verifiable. Just because you have to exert a little effort to verify something doesn't mean you can't do it. Feel free to relist the article without worrying about it; a competent reviewer will know to disregard this useless quickfail. GRAPPLE X 10:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this crop up again and again and again. We really need a Wikipedia:Books are reliable sources, because we have quite a number of users who just don't get it. As for exerting a little effort, that's also not an issue like it once was. Many books are available online, and it is possible to selectively spot-check and verify passages using a combination of Google Books (previews and snippets) and Amazon (but you need to be signed in). Also, reviewers should be aware that any passage they need to verify but can't, can be requested in whole or in part from the nominator for the purposes of verification. Every once in a while, a reviewer will run into a situation where the nominator did not write the material, does not have access to the passage in question, and cannot verify it. If such material is controversial or questionable, then removal to the talk page may be necessary. Viriditas (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to review it when it gets renominated - it would be really rather frustrating if this had to wait around in the queue again.Fayedizard (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be nominated for a second opinion. As for the requested essay, we have the more generic Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost Cambalachero (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably quickest just to renominated it and Fayedizard (or someone) review it. The first reviewer doesn't have to accept the second opinion. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you,  Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep an eye over Obtund reviews. I'm afraid we'll have to. I hope that he learns from this; it'll be sad if he happens to go the same way as Oakley or TeacherA. Regards. —Hahc21 20:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am so sorry guys, when I read Access to sources in verifiability, I saw that I don't have access to them it can be verified. But I do think Wikipedia:Books are reliable sources would be a great idea! Actually I'm think about starting it up. Sorry for any inconvenience I misunderstood. I fixed all the issues, please don't judge me on this poor mistake I am truly sorry. Please if you have any pointers or help I will gladly take it! Once again sorry! Obtund^Talk 03:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. We all make mistakes. If you need something, you can ask me. I'm thinking on writing that too, as many users think that books are unreliable. Regards. —ΛΧΣ21™ 03:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well let's start making one today. Like really if I didn't figured how much I screwed this up, I would have gotten barred. Obtund^Talk 03:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely the issue is verifiability, not reliability and thus - as Obtund has now discovered - we have it covered at WP:SOURCEACCESS. bridies (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Essay about GA reviewing may encourage this misconception

The essay What the Good article criteria are not states the following as one of the "mistakes to avoid" in assessing criterion 2:

*Not checking at least a substantial proportion of sources to make sure that they actually support the statements they're purported to support. (Sources should not be "accepted in good faith": for example, nominators may themselves have left prior material unchecked by assuming good faith.)

For books and other offline references to be acceptable sources, the GA reviewer has to "accept in good faith" that the sources support the statements (except in rare cases where the reviewer has, or can gain, access to the offline sources). Hence the above sentence implicitly encourages the failing of articles that use offline references, on the grounds that they cannot be verified. The sentence should be removed from the article or at least reworded. Reviewers without access to the sources can still be encouraged to use online catalogues to verify that the offline sources do exist and to use information about the author/publisher to evaluate reliability.

By the way, most of my GAs and GAs-to-be cite Chinese-language references and with the declining standard of reviews, I am concerned that reviewers may fail my GANs due to significant use of Chinese-language references. Could the essay also mention that as a common mistake?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that their is a large decline in the standards of reviews. There have always been good and bad reviews, you just hear about the bad ones because no one comes here and says "such and such has done an excellent review." Foreign language sources and sources that can't be accessed through Google books are always tricky. Maybe that could be reworded as according to the WP:GACR only "quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons" needs to be checked (although it pays to at least check at least a few others for close paraphrasing). There is always the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and Wikipedia:Translators available (I find Google translate is usually enough to check simple facts). AIRcorn (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that reviewers have access to books only in "rare cases". I know how to use a library, and I'll bet that most of our reviewers do, too. There's also the resource exchange, friendly folks at WikiProjects who will double-check things on behalf of reviewers, previews through Google Books and Amazon, and many other ways to find out whether a given book supports a given claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added the bit about translations to GACN. For future reference, if you've got a good idea, you can make a bold effort to improve it yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A user asked this on the Help Desk:--Kürbis (✔) 08:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way to find out number of GA reviews done by an editor? Thank you. TBrandley 02:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The only way I can think of right now is to manually filter the output of Soxred93's Pages created tool (example search for me). Unix and OSX users can launch grep -E /GA\? in the terminal, paste tool's output there and hit Ctrl+D to get list on standard output. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm playing with the API a little bit at the moment - do we want an 'alltime leaderboard'? (and can we reasonably assume articles that have been GA reviewed have Template:ArticleHistory on their talkpage?) Fayedizard (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we have Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by Good Articles. Also, X's tolls are very helpful for that, as pointed above. —ΛΧΣ21™ 21:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As it happens I just requested something similar at WP:Bot requests#Keeping track of Good articles. AIRcorn (talk)

It's not complete atm, but this should answer your question. --Chris 03:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

An interesting table, but it's not correct; I've done 215 GA reviews, not 208. Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Certianly interesting. It doesn't factor in reviews before the /GA subpages started, so people like myself and Malleus will have lower totals, but that can't really be fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

To say nothing of that GA sweeps marathon. Looking back I see I did 321 of those, so by my count I've done 536 GA reviews. Malleus Fatuorum 04:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Amazing tool Chris. I liked it. 78 GA reviews, which i think is correct. Regards. —ΛΧΣ21™ 01:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, I counted 23 reviews of mine, while it reports 21. Given that my first review was in 2012, the "/GA" subpages issue shouldn't affect it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it counted Talk:Tute/GA1 or other reviews where you did not create the page. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Great tool - it has me at 118...which sounds a bit low for me but might be correct. When I get some free time I will try to calculate...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the "grep" method above gives 22 for me (that is all I listed except Talk:Tute/GA1, which I didn't start). The difference of 1 item remains. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Who asked this question in help section? --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 August 11#GA reviews. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is clear who asked... Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That list has me down for 400 reviews. I completed my 400th review on 25 July last year, then I took a long break and did no reviews between last September and May of this year; and my current total is 441 reviews. I failed some 40 nominations out of those 441 reviews, so either the list is a bit out of date, or its only counting articles that were awarded GA. Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Has me down for 158 when I've done 168 (counting one reassessment). MathewTownsend (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

hello,

the backlog is awful. I am in favour to introduce the QPQ system. Every nominator is required to review at least an article. Then the result will be decided upon community consensus. Another proposal is to start a drive once again... Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Really there are lots of articles in the queue. Not all nominators are experienced Wiki editor too– is not it (a nominator should not know all GAC?). But, it is a good idea to do something for the backlog. Best, Tito Dutta ✉ 13:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the community then can decide. Unexperienced and experienced reviewers come together. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed less than a month ago, and rejected: Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_17#QPQ_list --Rschen7754 18:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 19:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

		Article goes here is now a Good Article
		Congrats! The article you nominated Article goes here was just promoted to Good Article status! Great job to all of your hard work! ~~~~

What do you guys think of something like this to give to the nominator once the article becomes a good article? Obtund^Talk 18:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I usually notify nominators on their talk page. This seems better! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. TBrandley 18:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks great! --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be good for someone on their first successful nominations, but having over 50 GAs myself, I personally would find it rather annoying to get the same banner over and over. Definitely useful for encouraging newer content contributors though. Resolute 18:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A good part of this banner is it looks like a branstar! So, some people will add it in their barnstar pages/lists, I think! With my best wishes, Tito Dutta ✉ 18:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't see the point. Wouldn't the nominator already know from watching the review? Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Resulote, like for maybe a users first 10 I guess to encourage then to keep doing it. Malleus...probably but this encourage them to do it more. Obtund^Talk 19:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We already have Template:The Good Article Barnstar, which I see people hand out on a fairly regular basis. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Forgive the statement of the obvious, but isn't the whole point of the GA process that anyone can nominate articles they think are worthy that they happen to come across? "Great job to all of your hard work" (which grammatically makes no sense, FWIW) could be awarding "hard work" that consisted of nothing more than two mouse clicks. Mogism (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Torchiest, this is for tell the user it was promoted. Mogism, hard work can be defined as many things(sarcasm). I know what you are saying but I will note that it can only be given if the user has made 20+ edits to the article. Obtund^Talk 19:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what it would look like, it comes from Template:GA banner:
{{subst:GA banner|article_name=REPLACE WITH ARTICLE NAME|1=~~~~}} Obtund^Talk 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps reviewers ought to be required to look through the article history and plop this barnstar on the talk pages of each of the top five contributors to the article. Top ten? But of course only after careful scrutiny of each of their edits. Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

20+ edits is a ridiculously high bar. By that logic, I'm not half-way to qualifying for my turning Bal maiden from a single paragraph cut-and-pasted from a website, into what I think I'd be legitimate in claiming is by far the best resource on the topic available online. Of a brief dip-sample of three randomly chosen articles currently at GAN (Stord Bridge, If We Are the Body, Charolais horse) the same is true of all three. Mogism (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have included a copy of the template documentation below. Mogism, I have lowered it to twelve, but it needs to be a substantial amount of edits. Obtund^Talk 19:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the GA process, only having gone through it once before, can an experienced user check out the recent GA reviews of Deunick (talk · contribs). They seem to be failing/passing nominations very quickly, without addressing the criteria. Some of the fail rationales appear to be on issues that could be fixed promptly if the reviews were put on hold. Regards, Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC) The reviews in question:

• Talk:Pyramid of Userkaf/GA1
• Talk:2011–12 Columbus Blue Jackets season/GA1
• Talk:Norsk Air/GA1‎
• Talk:Yeah! (Usher song)/GA2
• Talk:Nicki Minaj/GA2
• Talk:Charles Boycott/GA1

Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Quasihuman,

I could have actually let the nominations go to hold . I have been failing due to the Citation Error. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.[3]

Nicki Minaj is a Good Article. I studied this one earlier in the afternoon and it was easy one for my to just go ahead and say GREAT! Deunick (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to first read WP:WIAGA, WP:RGA, WP:GACN and gain some experience before you start reviewing articles for GA. Your accusation of articles completely lacking reliable sources is a complete hyperbole; all the articles you reviewed contain reliable sources, with only a few more needed to be added in, and so you could and should have been put them on hold. I have asked for someone else's opinion on Talk:Yeah! (Usher song)/GA2, as I believe failing an article for lacking 2 sources is, to be honest, stupid. Take my advice and gain some experience before you attempt reviewing GA's again. Rayman^{95 (talk)} 00:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It is really not a good idea to start conducting reviews with your first few edits. The criteria are relatively simple but some knowledge and experience of how Wikipedia works is important. For example you failed 2011–12 Columbus Blue Jackets season, Norsk Air and Yeah! (Usher song) for lack of citations, but the lead does not need citations if the information is supported in the body (which it is in these cases). I am not sure what you are asking at Talk:Charles Boycott/GA1 and given the issues here I do not have much confidence in the Nicki Minaj pass. I would suggest that these reviews all be deleted and the nominations put back into the queue. AIRcorn (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Talk:Norsk Air/GA1‎ review has been cleared and I'm going to review it. Pyrotec (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll take 2011–12 Columbus Blue Jackets season AIRcorn (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll do what AIRcorn suggested and restart the edit for Yeah! (Usher song). Rayman^{95 (talk)} 14:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing the consensus is to uphold the pass on the Nicki Minaj article? Could someone reassess this? As the nominator, I'll have to remove the 'good article' tag and await the reassessment. Jennie | ☎ 17:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj seems a rather sad case. Looking at the history, the first review /GA1 was carried out by a contributor to the article and was declared invalid. Deunick seems to have made three attempts to "pass" the nomination: the first two by adding the {{good article}} template to the article over two days and the third by adding a "GA review" to the article's talkpage. Finally, it was passed by Deunick with a "rubber stamp" review. Can I clarify what you are looking for? Options are a second opinion on the existing /GA2, a formal reassessment at WP:GAR which could be done easily as a personal reassessment rather than a community re-asssessment, or (in effect) blanking/deleting the existing /GA2 and putting the article back into WP:GAN under its original nominator and time/date stamp. I could review it (but I've got one to finish now and two more to do - one of which is Norsk Air), but Nicki Minaj is not a topic that interests me and I tend not to do those topics, but I do make exceptions in cases such as this (so that would be Saturday or more likely Sunday if I do it). Pyrotec (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you could review it on Sunday (or even later), that would be fantastic! It has been a bit of sad case, myself and a few other editors have made huge changes in terms of WP:RS and validity, so I would like to see it awarded GA. If you change your mind - and don't want to review it - that would also be fine. Thanks for all your help :) Jennie | ☎ 19:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I won't sign up at present to review it. It's the fourth on my list of four reviews, but I might be able to move it to third place; and that leaves the one I've just started and Norsk Air to complete. So, Sunday is still possible. Pyrotec (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What would be the best thing to do with Talk:Charles Boycott/GA1, my own nomination. That one is now "being reviewed" by Deunick according to GAN. I would like to revert to the pre-Deunick state of affairs, but am not sure how to achieve that. Do I have to bring the /GA1 up at MfD to delete it, or can I just remove the "this article is being reviewed" bit on GAN? Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If your article had had even the slightest suggestion of a proper review then I'd have said that you should persuade the reviewer to fail it, and then either resubmit at GAN or take it to GAR. But in the circumstances I'd suggest that in the absence of any objections from you or anyone else here then I'll take over the review. I have to warn you though that I'm a little bit more demanding than Deunick, but not so demanding as some. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a new review just started by Deunick: Talk:United Arab Emirates/GA2. This one's a bit odd in that it has been submitted despite having a "lead" template (six paragraphs) in place since last month. I am, however, of the opinion that anyone who includes the sentence "The 1st paragraph is missing a few sourcing ( Witch needs to be done)" in a Good Article review has demonstrated a definitive lack of some of the critical skills needed to be a GAN reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ironically it is a much better candidate for a quick fail than the others, although it would stil be a bit harsh. I nominated it for deletion since it was reviewed after this discussion and left a note asking him not to review any more articles until he gains more experience. I think we are heading into WP:CIR territory here. AIRcorn (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we're well into IAR territory so far as the established GAN procedures are concerned; all of Deunick's reviews ought to be taken over by competent reviewers without any further discussion or debate. Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

agree. The criteria have been in place for a long time and are settled. Shouldn't be the reviewer's role to add whatever that person fancies. Defeats the purpose of GAN. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we have them all covered now. As long as he doesn't keep creating new ones until he gains some experience (hopefully someone watching has the power to prevent that occuring). AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia:Article size:

"A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. At 50 kB and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style - see WP:SIZERULE for "a rule of thumb". Comprehension of standard texts at average reading speed is around 65%."

Therefore this refers to "right on the limit of the average concentration span" - meaning this is the top end of the average reader's ability to concentrate and most reader's span will be lower. And at best, comprehension is about 65%. We don't want to lower the comprehension level by overly detailed and complex writing.

"Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness. Most articles do not need to be excessively long; however, there are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion. "

Readability means appealing to the average reader - not only the "high end" reader only. District Railway is a technical article because of the overload of detailed facts and figures.

"Total article size should be kept reasonably low, because many users edit from low-speed connections including dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections. The text on a 32kB page takes about five seconds to load for editing on a dial-up connection, with accompanying images taking additional time, so pages significantly larger than this are difficult for older browsers to display."

This is common sense as WMF metrics show most readers access wikipedia from a smartphone.

"It should also be noted that the MediaWiki software has a default article size limit of 2048 kilobytes."

Unfettered length has limits.

MathewTownsend (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your comments. I'm interested in your statement that District Railway is a technical article because of the overload of detailed facts and figures. Can you please give some examples? Please ignore the Electric multple unit section, that is being replaced.Edgepedia (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

To use this template, add {{subst:GA banner|article_name=REPLACE WITH ARTICLE NAME|1=~~~~}} to the talk page of the user you wish to award it to.

Requirements

1. Editor has to be the nominator of the article.
2. Editor has to be a registered user.
3. Editor has to have 12+ edits or 3+ major contributions to the article before the Good Article review.
4. Editor has to have been participating throughout the Good Article review.

}}

Mogism's point is that number of edits tells us nothing at all; it's what the edits are that matters. I get credited with DYK's I've done a bit of copyediting to all the time, which is ridiculous really. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO. "Requirements" are over thinking the matter. Like any other barnstar, the value in them comes from judicious application of them. If you can see that an editor has obviously put a lot of work into the article and nomination, then feel free to hand it, or any of the other barnstars out. Common sense application is all that is required. Resolute 20:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the requirements are based off of what editors said above, and to Malleus I'll change it to 12+ edits or 3+ major contributions. Obtund^Talk 20:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Like Resolute said, there's no need for requirements. Just hand out barnstars and the like when you see someone worthy, based on whatever standards you yourself prefer to use. You'll never get agreement on what those standards should be, but the beauty of it is, you don't need agreement on them. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of this is to tell the nominator that the article was promoted to GA status. Obtund^Talk 20:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We already have {{The Good Article Barnstar}} and {{GANotice}}, the latter of which can be used to indicate passage, failing, holding or even initial acceptance of the review. Imzadi 1979 → 21:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok so what difference does it make. Obtund^Talk 21:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

At present, if I pass (or fail, or put On Hold) a GAN I use the existing {{GANotice}}. Under this new proposal, when I pass an article I have to look at the article's history and the requirements (above) and the start adding this new template on to one or more editor's talkpages. Looking at the comments in the section above (The backlog), one or two editors (perhaps more) are complaining about the length of the queue at WP:GAN. There is no shortage of nominations, so there is no real need to dish these out to potential nominators in order to attract more nominations. The shortage is reviewers, and this proposal is just about adding more rules, regulations and work on reviewers. If a nominator wants a "box" they can use {{User Good Articles|1}}, {{User Good Articles|10}}, no reviewer involvement is needed. Pyrotec (talk)

...which is at the root of much of the problem here. Where are the rewards and encouragement for the reviewers, who if truth be told sometimes work harder than the nominators? As Mogism pointed out above, all it takes to nominate an article is a couple of mouse clicks. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That is why you need to have 12+ contributions before the GA review or 3+ major contributions. Obtund^Talk 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that idea is a dead duck, for all the reasons given above; it just ain't gonna happen. Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, based on the disastrous results of the most recent backlog elimination drive, I don't know that there's a "safe" way to encourage reviewers. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Then that's the problem that ought to be exercising "our leetle gray cells". Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In response to Obtund (and perhaps Torchiest). Take at look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/June-July 2012/Totals. There are reviewers there with over 61 reviews (TBradley) and 77 reviews (Status) in the one-month drive who were passing articles with copyright concerns, passing articles that should not have been passed or just "rubber stamping" nominations and awarding GA sometimes after one or two minutes reviewing time. There were also reviewers who did not do many reviews but did them thoroughly. It would appear that someone, such as those, with the experience of 50 or more reviews would be competent at reviewing, well they are very popular reviewers but they are not competent reviewers. There is also a drive, yet again, for "you pass my article and I'll pass yours" (its not called that, its called QPQ). Pyrotec (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm right there with you. I've been following the aftermath for the last month, and I opposed the most recent QPQ proposal. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about QPQ this is about the template, and some people didn't understand it. Obtund^Talk 01:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Revised template

		[[{{{article_name}}}]] is now a Good Article
		Congrats! The article you nominated [[{{{article_name}}}]] was just promoted to Good Article status! {{{1}}}

I have changed the template a bit to agree with everything people what said above, and made the requirements just that you have to be a registered user, and the nominator of the article. I hope this is fine. Obtund^Talk 23:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We already have {{GANotice|result=pass}} which will produce a section header and "The article Article you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Article for comments about the article. Well done!" That's sufficient, I think. I appreciate the enthusiasm, but we don't need another template, do we? Imzadi 1979 → 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, although there might be some mileage in improving that template (I am not overly fond of them). On that note we might also want to take this further and trim the number of list templates currently mentioned at how to review a Good article, or at least present them on a sub page. Not sure we need two GANotice templates either. AIRcorn (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I didn't know about those, so I made one, and frankly this looks a lot better than the GANotice. There is no issue in having it you can use what ever you want, but I would use this. Obtund^Talk 02:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

{{GANotice}} serves another purpose: it informs of accomplishment. This template is more of barnstar one can then copy to his "Awards" sections verbatim for WP:DIVA purposes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with "nominator" notion: I've seen several cases when one editor did most of the work and another one nominated the article later after minor input. I believe the nominator requirement should be just dropped, and the text should be changed to something like "The article [[{{{article}}}]] was promoted to Good Article status thanks to your effort! {{{1}}}". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW the {{{article}}} parameter should be unnamed (and {{{1}}} should consequently become {{{2}}}), so that the template could be placed as {{GA Barnstar|example article|~~~~}}, not {{GA Barnstar|article=example article|~~~~}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well that was why I had the requirement that they had to participate throughout the review. Ok the requirements now are you must be the nominator, a registered user, and participated throughout the GA review. Obtund^Talk 17:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement at WP:GAN for a nominator to be a registered user. An IP account can nominate an article and fix problems, they just can't review nominations. In addition, there is no requirement on the nominator to fix problems, provided someone fixes them the article can become a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok I got rid of the registered user, but they have to participate throughout it because people think that people would get it for nominating but doing nothing else. Obtund^Talk 00:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My problem is exactly with "nominator" requirement: I see no reason this should not be targeted at people who made this articles de facto GAs and caught up on review, though not nominated the article. BTW, it's a strange idea to award IPs — nobody knows whether the same editor would get the award. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The main problem are the "rules". Taking extreme cases: there are editors that almost single-handedly take a stub, expand it up to what appears to be GA-class, nominate it and fix all the errors; and its becomes a GA. Most of these are editors with usernames (but sometimes its one or more IP users - its difficult to know whether its just one user, or more). OK, they deserve the credit. Some nominators have done no work on the article they just nominate it and fix the errors (it might be at GA-standard, but its just not been nominated), sometimes they don't fix the errors the original editors fix them. In this case it's not so clear that the nominator deserves the full credit, they may see an opportunity to take an existing article produced by others and run it through a process so that the article gets a "star" (in this GA) and they get a "star" as well, they just might wish to get some experience of putting a nomination through the GAN process, or they wish to add another GA-class article to their favourite wikiproject, there could be many reasons for nominating an article that you have not worked on, but what about the editor(s) who crafted the article? They appear to have as much right to a "star" as the nominator who "just" listed it on GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why I don't give any barnstars to nominators by default. IMO the whole concept of WikiLove and Barnstar templates is severely flawed: it leads to an increasing amount of actions that are headed towards receiving something one would include in his awards list, as opposed to improving content or doing something else beneficial for the project. In fact, most of awards I have on my user page I don't consider well deserved. (And that's why the whole section is collapsed on bottom.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Yes. As a reviewer I don't expect to be giving these out. I certainly will not be giving one out for every nomination that I "pass" (or List). I believe this process is an option for reviewers who wish to dish them out. As a reviewer who has completed 444 GAN reviews, with another one On Hold and one (almost two) in progress, I've had almost ten barnstars from successful nominators, and most give a "thank you", but some don't they just add a star to their userpage. I'm pleased with my nine barnstars, if I had say 444 they would lose their value. Pyrotec (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that 444½ reviews is something you should be proud of much more then any amount of barnstars... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done 437 GA reviews if you count GA Sweeps, and I doubt I've had more than a handful of thanks from any nominator. Like Pyrotec I won't be handing out any barnstars. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Sadly but as Pyro and Malleus, i won't be giving it neither. Nominators have enough with the fact that they wrote an article up to GA. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok you tell me to remove requirement and then add them. This is BS what all of you are doing:

1. You tell me that a registered user shouldn't be a requirement then you say it is strange to give that award to an IP.
2. I make it so you have to have 12+ edits or 3+ major contributions and you people don't like that, and then you say that anyone can nominate a article there should be a threshold.
3. Then you say that they should participate in the review which I had, then you want me to remove it.
4. You guys also made a fuss about how it said "Great job to all of your hard work" so I added requirement but that wasn't good enough so I removed the phrase and still it is not good enough.
5. Lastly, you say that we have GANotice and other. But who care I made it, I like it better, we can have more than one.

I really don't care anymore stop screwing with it, it is fine leave it as is. If you don't like it, DON'T USE IT!! Obtund^Talk 22:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Oh look Imzadi 1979 lost this battle and now he is nominating it for deletion. Grow up and fight your own battles. Obtund^Talk 23:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, who is "you" in this comment? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who is opposing it really. Now czarkoff your a different story your talking about it requried that it be the nominator, but by doing that it makes it completely different from GABarnstar. Obtund^Talk 23:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the problem with being different from GABarnstar? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well that is what Imzadi is trying to prove: That they are the same. Obtund^Talk 00:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if people actually used these, but I don't think people know about it/think to use it. I've promoted 45 GAs and I think I've received only a couple of barnstars for making them GA, but only one actual GA template barnstar. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 21:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember my suggestion that all reviews by new reviewers should be checked by an experienced reviewer before the result of the review is made official? Hwa Chong Institution was recently reviewed by Thehistorian10, who appears inexperienced, but has potential to be a good reviewer. To show how my suggestion could work, here are my comments on his review:

• "I must, however, express concern at the fact that this article is a nominee for good article status, yet is only classified as a "C-class" article. Whilst this grading does not influence this review in any way, it should be noted that the criteria will be applied more stringently, as the article has not obtained the highest classifcation possible, at which it would be presumed that the article has good-article qualities." A common mistake made by inexperienced reviewers. The class rating should not affect the review, since class ratings can quickly become outdated (this one appears outdated and the article clearly deserves B-class).
• "It is my finding that the article is unclear. There is the use of jargon in the article. This jargon - whilst relevant - is not defined in the article. Whilst the jargon is linked to other articles, the definitions of such jargon can only be found in those articles. This would prove ineffective for those readers who did not have the time to hunt through related articles to define a simple term in this one article." He should explain what he considers jargon and give several examples. Jargon is generally found in articles about mathematical theorems, not those about educational institutions.
• "Regarding the guidelines for the lead sections, the lead could be considered as too long. The lead is three paragraphs long. Whilst such a lead might be more appropriate for an article about a large historical period (such as the Greek Empire) or a country (such as Singapore), it is a disproportionate length for a lead about an educational institution." Reasonable concern that different reviewers may have different opinions on.
• "Not every paragraph has an individual source reference - there is a paragraph in the "merger" section that has no source citation whatsoever. This could possibly be considered as an instance of original research. As there is no evidence to the contrary, this paragraph will be trated as such." Since the article only uses inline citations, he is technically correct that one unreferenced paragraph would cause the article to fail criterion 2. In fact, I missed out that unreferenced paragraph and am glad he pointed that out. Perhaps this concern (and the jargon) warranted a hold, rather than an outright fail.

Under my proposal, after completing his review, he would have instantly requested a second opinion from an experienced reviewer, who would have given feedback similar to mine above, then proceeded to actually pass, fail or hold the nomination. The new reviewer would learn more about reviewing without getting bitten, since the nominator would be less annoyed by his mistakes.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really like having to do this, but this may have to be on the table due to recent events (Oakley77, also see several other sections on this page). --Rschen7754 23:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

To add to this, there is a debate at Talk:Roman Empire#GA review about the GA review which passed this article by the same user at Talk:Roman Empire/GA1, just before the one mentioned above. In this case the article was passed in an review that was set out in one post. A number of editors, including myself, believe that the review did not examine some important parts of the GA criteria (particularly coverage). As far as I understand, since at least one editor (the nominator) dissents, this may have to go to a community review. I am posting this in case there are wider issues to consider and to see if there is any advice.--SabreBD (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A community review is really the only way forward. Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm only now reading Roman Empire carefully, and it's a disaster. Only a couple of sections are of good quality. In its present state, I'd only give it a C. The GA designation really needs to go away. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The first item is just an error (reasonable enough, if you don't know how it works), and I've added it to the end of WP:GACN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that the topic of "reviewing reviewers" became rather hot lately, I would like to propose a compulsory measure to decrease the amount of incidents: let's make a list of experienced reviewers who are ready to adopt the newbies. Any reviewer who is unsure of whether he is on the right track may ask for adoption and collaborate with the more experienced reviewer he chooses from the list. The list itself is populated by reviewers considering themselves experienced signing up themselves. Comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Mentors (merged to new target page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I expected this answer. Actually this list is close to my proposal, but it is more of expert opinion on demand, while I suggest something more like babysitting. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a discussion with User:MathewTownsend at Talk:District Railway/GA2 (reviewer is User:Fayedizard) about the comprehensiveness of the article. A comment had been made by the reviewer on the Broad in its coverage requirement that Detail is a bit of an issue and I compared the length article to some similar Featured Articles. User:MathewTownsend's then expressed his opinion that This is a GAN, not a FAC. So it shouldn't be compared to FAs in size or focus.; when I challenged him on this he said Good articles are meant to touch on the major issues of a subject (broad overview), but to be concise and not go into excessive detail. That way the reader actually reads the whole article.

I've looked at the GA criteria and the point reads

(An good article is:)

• Broad in its coverage
  • it addresses the main aspects of the topic
  • it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)^[1]

The corresponding points on FA criteria are spread over a number of points:

• 1. (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• . (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;

and

• 4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style).

In reading these I'm not seeing a requirement that good articles need to be shorter than featured articles, although they can be. The requirements the maximum length for both GAs and FAs are both given in the criteria as summary style. This means that a FA would pass GA criteria so that an article that fails a FAR could pass a GA nom without rewriting. A GA can be expanded to FA status without loosing its GA status (because it is too detailed) and GA can be used as a route to FA status. A FA can be used as a guideline when writing any article. An article can be expanded looking at the MOS and then nominated for GA or FA later.

I've asked MathewTownsend to comment here. Edgepedia (talk) 06:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've read your last paragraph 3 times and still don't get what you're saying. That aside, length itself is not a criteria. Both FAs and GAs can be quite short (see Miss Meyers and Caffo, for example) so long as they are reasonably comprehensive. Having a minimum length can lead to play-by-plays in sports biographies and other unencyclopedic writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• The FA criteria is irrelevant when judging an article against the GA criteria. Just use the GA criteria and treat the criteria as minimum requirements. maclean (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking at the criteria (listed above) are not the FA and GA criteria the same? There is one extra word in the FA criteria but I don't think this changes the meaning? Edgepedia (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW the length of the article indicates neither thoroughness nor focus on topic. Eg., to bring ls to GA or FA status one would have to condense it quite a bit. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • What is the ideal article size for you? Both FA and GA criteria take you to WP:Summary style. The first section is the editing guideline WP:Article size that recommends a page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words. The article is within this guideline at 45,984 characters and 7534 words. Edgepedia (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • That should definitely indicate maximum size. That's not an average size, even for FA. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I see no reason to cap off a "maximum" size for GA provided the article in question is uniformly good; if size could be trimmed by removing questionable, rather than overly-detailed, material (coat-racked stuff, uncited stuff, etc) then yes, that should be an option; but I wouldn't say that a GA can be too in-depth provided it hasn't hit an undue weight on one topic. A film article might bear to lose some weight if its soundtrack has enough material to warrant a new article, for example, but I wouldn't suggest automatically spinning that out if everything is given an equal bearing. I've passed some pretty substantial articles in my time here (Marshall Applewhite, Albertus Soegijapranata, Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) were all over 5000 words when I review them) and my own first GA was about 2.8k words long. On the other end of the spectrum, articles may by necessity be quite short and still be of good quality, by virtue of a lack of available sources (my own GA Crime and Dissonance is as comprehensive as can be but hasn't hit 1k words, and I reviewed the impeccable, but brief, Senior Prom at 652 words). Length alone really isn't the guage of things if everything's at a good quality and nothing seems individually undue. GRAPPLE X 15:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I would say, that it should indicate average recommended maximum size, though some topics necessitate larger size when summary style would itself lead to large articles (think of History of Russia and other topics similarly enormous in scope). On the other side, 30 kB of readable prose in ls is nowhere close to recommended maximum for this particular scope. So the general rule is: the appropriate length is limited by scope of the article and applicability of WP:SS, not by any particular range of numbers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Right, that's a better wording (referring to WP:Article size) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Okay, it took me a while to parse all of this; I'd highly recommend any lurkers go read the GA discussion linked above for a better understanding. I think there are two different issues here that are getting conflated. First of all, the idea that Featured Articles are too detailed and thus unappealing is inaccurate, I believe. The point of FAs is that they are the best we have to offer, and that includes being the best reads. However, I do believe that sometimes the route to article improvement is removal of extraneous details which cause the article to lose focus. If something is too detailed, it's too detailed, period. MathewTownsend almost seems to be saying GAs are better than FAs because they are less detailed, which can't be the case. Any article which can pass at FAC should be able to pass at GAN. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  Anyone who believes that an FA wouldn't pass GAN meeds to have their bumps felt as a matter of urgency. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

don't get this (confusing)

What is meant here?

"The requirements the maximum length for both GAs and FAs are both given in the criteria as summary style. This means that a FA would pass GA criteria so that an article that fails a FAR could pass a GA nom without rewriting."

Not true, if I'm understanding what you mean. If an article fails a FAR because it has too much detail, is unfocused and contains unnecessary detail, it would not pas GA without rewriting. GA criteria are geared to less detail that would be acceptable in a FA. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely an article would fail FAR because it is unfocused and contains unnecessary detail; if that was the case it shouldn't have been prompted in the first place. I think I was thinking of cases where, for example, details had been added using prose that was not 'engaging, even brilliant', or not referenced to FA standards. Edgepedia (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

But it could have failed FAR because of sub-standard text that was added after promotion to FA, in which case the article that failed FAR would still require a re-write to meet GA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if the comments at this good article nomination are getting a bit excessive. It seems to have become a very detailed examination of the article, above and beyond the criteria. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. WP:GAN is not WP:FAC. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. It's way overboard. Another reason for using templates is to keep the review focused and to prevent docking the article for issues that aren't part of the GA criteria. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree too. Dutta's reviews are always good, but they might sometimes lead to things like this. They debate over days over some things that are outside the criteria. It happened the same with Barack Obama on Twitter. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That review page is longer than the article! So much for a lightweight process against simple and easy to understand criteria! (Note: the criteria can be simple, but that doesn't mean they're easy.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree too. The "guest reviewers" are not needed; the before we start stuff is also not needed. I figure that Tito should just start the review, without any "how to proceed". Don't get me wrong, a very intense detailed review is great, but, there is some stuff that is just unneeded. WP:FAC type comments are also okay, cause it can improve the article for that. So. TBrandley 01:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

1) The interesting point is this review is one day old 2) a) I have nothing to do if other people join review discussion– I don't know where Omer123Hussain and Dwaipayanc found the review (they have added some good points). b) Guest reviewer is a formal attribution. If you join the review (you are always welcome to join my review), I'll add your name in the guest reviewer section too. c) I have added hardly 40%–50 points in the review (remaining are added by other reviewers). See long section like this. 3) I have almost finished this review! --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And just off topic– I am very much delighted, satisfied and surprised to see the teamwork done in this review– 3–4 editors, 3–4 reviewers and they have done such a brilliant work in just 24 hours! One primary contributor of the article feels– The article is a hundred times better than what it was just a couple of days ago :) . Kudos to teamwork. That's the spirit! Kudos--Tito Dutta ✉ 07:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I find your reviews amusing =). Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Kurbis. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please allow me to apologise if any of my actions have led to the inclusion of this thread. Though I have plenty of experience with editing GA nominations, this is the first time I have actually been part of the review process, and probably still a bit green. It has however been a pleasurable experience, and I believe the article has greatly progressed as a result. Regards,  -- WikHead (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You have done a great job in the review WikHead! Being a non native speaker of English, I am confused with the use of the word "amusing". I spent 15 hours yesterday in this review so the word "comical" or "humorous" (Google's suggestion) is not acceptable--Tito Dutta ✉ 18:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Some things that I saw in the review page that are "amusing" or "confusing" to me are:

1. The whole "Before we start" section: I've never seen a review include an explanation of how the reviewer will do the review, complete with graphics. Normally, a reviewer just starts the review and makes his/her comments and that's it. I've seen short comments like, "I'll be reviewing this over the next few days, and I'll note when I've finished my review" or similar.
2. The concept of "guest reviewers" is foreign to how GAN works. There is only one reviewer who makes the initial review and any follow-up comments before listing or not listing (passing or failing) the article. There is a formal method to request a second opinion, and although editors can chime in with additional comments, it's the initial reviewer that's expected to make the final decision on listing or not listing the article.
3. What is a "Funny moment of the review"? How is that appropriate to furthering the goal of improving the article?
4. Graphics in section headings aren't normally a good idea, so adding {{done}} to them isn't ideal. (It breaks section linking, for example.)
5. And most importantly, I don't see any or many references to the GA criteria in making the reviews. There isn't a requirement to use {{GAList}} or other similar templates, but in doing so, it does demonstrate that the review is referencing the criteria and how the article does or does not comply with them. Other improvements are great, but they aren't necessary to achieve GA status. Imzadi 1979 → 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not added done templates in section headers! It breaks the headers! --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

=== Section 01 {{done}}=== was added by someone then. Imzadi 1979 → 20:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, editors who have done the tasks... --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And it still shouldn't be done, as it breaks the section headers, whether you did it, or someone else did. Imzadi 1979 → 20:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That review is genuinely one of the weirdest things I've ever read on Wikipedia. Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed graphic templates and posted a short message about it. Can someone (special request to Hahc21, TBrandley) help by taking over and finishing these three reviews Talk:Independence Day (Pakistan)/GA1, Talk:Tripura/GA1, Talk:Rameswaram/GA2 so that I can leave this zone (for some time)? Thanks for good comments!--Tito Dutta ✉ 02:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Strike-though signed --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Knowingly or unknowingly, Titodutta helps to address issues that can be possible brought up when they are FAN. I appreciate that efforts as I do plan to bring that page to the FA stage like Independence Day (India) is currently at. It might not be soon, but I'll go for it sure as Titto and other editors helped it improve a lot but anyhow, it is getting more and more detailed now. As far as I believe, it is now up to GA standards and even can be close to FA. Since the copyright issue can be even resolved at the talk page, I've moved it from the review page to the talk. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 02:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps comments like "amusing" and "weirdest thing" were unnecessary. Yes, Tito deviates from the formal way of doing a GAR and this should be brought to his notice. But to ridicule his initiative is a bit harsh. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 02:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree; Dutta is kind of being treated unfairly. I mean, nothing wrong with WP:FAC-type comments. TBrandley 02:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree too. Maybe we used the incorrect word when we said "amusing". I find Tito's reviews very well-made and interesting. They always make the article way way better, so there's nothing bad with him or his reviews. I consider we should close this chapter and just continue with the good work. We cannot afford losing a good reviewer just because of minor details on how he does his reviews. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Question:

1. I have done 9–10 reviews. If you have seen my long reviews please see shorter reviews too like Talk:Bad Girls Club/GA1, Talk:Group 12 element/GA1, Talk:Islam/GA1, Talk:Bhagat Singh/GA3, Talk:Bangalore Karaga/GA1, Talk:Delhi/GA1 etc. 6 out of 9 or 10 reviews are not long!
   Also, I do not add GAlist, GATable etc templates? Please check my long finished reviews!
2. Please also note, the long 3 (out of 10) reviews you are talking about– none of those failed in GA review. Yes, I added many points but I finally passed those when I am fully satisfied and all my questions. Also a peculiar fact– in my reviews, you may find it very difficult to pass... but... almost impossible to fail if you are co-operating and solving the issues I am mentioning (don't leak out my secret). And that's the thing which makes a review sometimes very long (because I want to be fully satisfied before passing an article). And surprisingly, I have got 5 barnstars and some good comments (I can show) from the editors for those longer 3 reviews. If you feel my reviews annoyingly detailed, please nominate an article and ask me to review, after finishing the review, I'll ask your opinion. :) --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have is that this review (and others I have seen, and not just Titodutta) completely ignores the good article criteria; I don't know how anyone can review whether or not an article is a good article if they do not mention any of the criteria in the review, and spend most of the review dealing with issues which are not relevant to the criteria. I do not deny that an extended review improves the article; however, that is not what the criteria are for. If you want a longer review, then request a peer review. The problem I see is that, while an extensive review does not damage the article in question, it is not very good for the good article process. If we keep raising the standards, then requesting a GA review becomes less and less attractive (because it because much more hassle to get recognition for good work). The point of GA is that is is not FAC: there are often times that I want to improve an article, but lack the dedication or expertise to take it to FAC. GA is then a great target, which will give me an incentive to work. Without GA, I may be less inclined to work on the article; similarly, if the GA process becomes more demanding, I will be equally less inclined. I like GA because it is not too demanding yet still encourages people to improve articles to a decent standard. Of course, they could all be better, but that's why we have FAC. I am concerned at the increasing standards of review, because it undermines the purpose of GA: easy, non-demanding reviews which still lead to good quality articles. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I will add to that: if you want to do a Good Article review, please use the various templates in order to keep in on track. If you really don't like templates, try to consciously list all of the criteria and stick just to them. If you like longer reviews, FAC would really appreciate your help. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

nothing wrong with WP:FAC-type comments—except that they confuse people, suggest that the reviewer doesn't understand the GA process, stress out noms who believe that they have to meet FAC levels to earn GA, mislead any new reviewers who see it into thinking that making up your own standards is a good thing, and spread an erroneous view of GA as requiring near-perfection and being complicated. But other than all that, yeah, nothing really wrong with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A few threads ago we were bemoaning superficial reviews and now we have too complex ones. Tito, you are a good editor and doing a good job, but you will do well to heed the advice and maybe scale back your reviews a bit. Everyone has there own style, but you might like to focus first on the aspects of the GA criteria before adding additional comments that go further in depth. Having some FAC type comments are not a problem as long as you recognise (and the nominator knows) that these are optional. Keep at it, you take on articles that many of us here probably wouldn't and they all end up better for your review. AIRcorn (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Also, I do not add GAlist, GATable etc templates? Please check my long finished reviews!" – By this, I meant, I use templates! Thanks!--Tito Dutta ✉ 04:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:GAN or WP:FAC

Some points so far:

• Graphic template in header; I have not added those templates
• My reviews are too long: 6 out 9 or 10 are not so long (details above)
• Not using GATable, GAList etc template: No, actually I do use (see my recently finished reviews)

Manual assessment

• The fourth (and the most vital) point which has been mentioned many times in this discussion: most of the points are WP:FAC related and don't follow WP:GAC. Well, I have spent 2 hours today and created a manual explanation of all the points I have mentioned in this review. I have tried to show how these points are related to WP:GAC (I generally follow Template:GATable while reviewing).
  As you can see the fourth column is blank. If you think a point is completely absurd (too strict) for WP:GA review, tick it or mark it:
  
  YThere are 24 or something points below, I am interested to see how many points you can tag as "WP:FAC and absolutely not WP:GAC issues"?

Section	Issue	GA Criteria	GA issue OR Absolutely not GA issue? (Please comment or tag)
1	Blank external link section	General formatting issue, Per Template:Commons_category#Location Commons category– Do not place this template in a section all by itself. should be formatting	Not GA. Compliance with WP:EL and WP:SISTER is not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Reply General formatting, yes, not GA, it is below GA
	History section	GA Criteria 3A, 3B, major aspects, staying focus, the article had more information on independence movement (and not Independence Day) which is not the subject if the article (see also #2d, I asked to trim this section and expand that section)
	Disambig link	Basic GA check– 3 disambiguation links found and tagged	Not GA. Resolving dab links is not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Reply Dabcheck is one basic check and added in tools in GA page!
	Pakistani Movement	GA criteria 1b MoS Layout, section/template positioning, I asked to put this template Template:Pakistan Movement at the bottom, not above external links
	External links	Followup/Continued from... of #1a "Blank external link section", also I fixed it myself	Not GA. Compliance with WP:EL and WP:SISTER is not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Reply It was a continued point from #1a
2	WP:OVERLINK	Overlink– formatting issue, last time I came for help here in this Good article discussion page, I saw, this point was highlighted
	Citation issues Citation needed	GA Criteria 2a Citation needed for information: What they told there, I saw the webpage and it was not mentioned there, so, also, criteria 2c WP:OR
	Celebration citation	GA Criteria 2b. citation fmt, inline citation. They grouped all sources at the end of the paragraph like this [21][22][23][24][25][26] I was facing trouble to verify the sources, so asked to put the sources in exact place where it is applicable (exactly those sentences which they are supporting).	Not GA. For better or worse, WP:CITE permits this. You'd naturally have to ask so you could do the verification work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Reply It was getting very difficult to verify the citation! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
	Popular culture/inspiration	I thought it is GA criteria 3a– major aspects. It is good to have some points on depiction of the day in popular culture. Also now they have added a long paragraph on it, so it shows it was actually a major point.
3	Worried	GA Criteria 3a, 3b. Also it is on "History" section point (#1b above), requested some trimming to keep on article GA Criteria 3b – focused on topic avoiding unnecessary details
	As August begins, various shops start..	Requested citation, GA criteria 2a – references to all information also requested slight rewriting for GA Criteria 1a– prose clear and concise
	Images	They had all 3 images added in short Celebration section (at that time the section was not very long) and no image in History/Background. I thought adding all images in one section is clogging up and not relevant which is GA Criteria 6b	Not GA. Compliance with MOS:IMAGES is not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Reply All images clogged in one section, thought of formatting --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
	National/national	"National" or "national" (i.e. first letter capital or small)– a very minor issue related to GA Criteria 1b MoS?
	Commonscat	They added template Commons, I asked to add template Commonscat since they had a category there (but not any page), and I saw we are getting much better results by adding Commonscat template.	Not GA. The best possible WP:SISTER link is not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Reply Comment below! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
4	Pre celebration – Citation needed	GA Criteria 2a – asking for citation
	Indian independence act	This is more a question to clear my doubt. I wanted to know if Indian independence act is truly applicable here or it should be named or written in different way. I asked this for GA Criteria 1a and Ga Criteria 3b. Later someone (an article editor) else raised the point again (as unnecessary details) and this section was summarized to help in GA Criteria 3b (summary style)
	MOS:TIES	MOS:TIES is GA Criteria 1b Manual of style! British spelling and American spelling mixed up (BTW, I myself fixed it using script)
5	Copyedit/clarification	GA Criteria 1a text was not clear (to me)
Funny moment of the review was an attempt to create a friendly environment in the review, which I always try (topic was an edit during GA review, so, not full off topic).
Section 6 has points by other reviewers, not me.
Section 7 has points by other reviewers, not me.
8	Republic Day	Asked for clarification. You are recommending to "See" Republic day "Also". But republic day of which country? Of course a good number of people can guess it is Republic day (Pakistan). Still I asked to clarify it and specially when I saw Republic day (Pakistan) redirects to Pakistan Day which is much better than just mentioning "Republic Day". Not fully, but still it is related to GA Criteria 1a.
	Redlink	Not a point I know redlink is not a big issue but it was a query on the redlink– BUT, surprisingly they found they already have article on this link. So it was a wrongly added Wikilink which was solved after asking the question.	Not GA. GA doesn't care about redlinks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Reply:This one helped to find the correct link
	Martyrs	Just wording (minor copyedit) to help in GA Criteria 1a
	Sources	Not a point, offering help This is not a point, this was an offer to help, I repeatedly requested (see #1a and #3b above) to focus on Independence day. And here I found some good content from Google Books and shared with editors.
	Google Doodle	GA criteria 1a– text is not clear, contains vague term like "Google created doodle to celebrate Independence day in the past". But when? Which year? Asked for clarification!
Image check License, ALT, Caption etc (double check) covering GA Criteria 6a and 6b			Not GA. Alt text is not required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC) I am not sure about it the importance of WP:ALT in GA review. Reply: Check, not only ALT, it was full assessment of 6a and 6b, comment on WP:ALT below
Comments by another reviewer (long section)
11	Status update needed	After other reviewers' comments (few long sections), I lost my track and summarized the tasks which are not completed still. This section does not have any new point though I have asked 1 citation (GA Criteria 2a), I asked to provide replace IMDb and blogspot blog ref (GA criteria 2b– reliable ref)
Section created and issues raised by another reviewer WikHead
Section created and issues raised by editor Samar
Section created and issues raised by another reviewer Omer123hussain
You have already found this review very long and weird and started this discussion in Good article talk page, so, I am asking to finish.
Section created and issues raised by editor Mar4d
Section created and issues raised by another reviewer VibhiJain
Section created and issues raised by another reviewer WikHead

--Tito Dutta ✉ 07:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for detailed review. I did not expect such a detailed review. So, I should appreciate it. On the other hand I am surprised to see some points like dablink etc has been included here which is basic GA check. #1a, #1c, #3e etc there are basic formatting check! And the question was not "Not GA" it was "are these points highly above GA criteria" or "Absolutely not GA"? With my good wishes --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert in GA criteria, but I know the criteria are much easier than FA criteria. In the GA reviews done by TitoDutta (I have not seen all of them though), I have noticed thoroughness, an eye to details, and a very friendly attitude. In the last some GA reviews, he has been increasingly using this style of reviewing that many users are finding "amusing" or "weird" in this thread. Any one is free to think that! As long as the article is getting improved to GA level in a collegial environment, what is the harm? The reviews have not been partial or too lenient. They may have been slightly more strict than usual GA criteria; but that actually helped the articles get even better.

We see many weird and amusing things in wikipedia, including paragraphs after paragraphs of discussion leading sometimes to nowhere. At least it is better to do a detailed article review rather than such wastage of time.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Dabcheck is one basic check and added in tools in GA page!

So? Nothing in that toolbox is required. Only the actual GA criteria are required. The GA criteria do not mention dab pages and therefore do not require resolution of dabs. You may suggest such improvements, but you may not require such changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, you are saying having dablink is not a big issue in GA review since GA criteria does not mention it clearly (though I am still confused why it is added in toolbox if it is not a GA issue), yet, I can include "dabcheck" in GA criteria 1a– prose is not clear– since a link is also a text, when I am clicking on it, it is taking me to an ambiguous page.

One thing most probably you have noticed, I have deliberately tried to avoid to use other reviewers reviews as references (it'll not be very pleasant and friendly if I start mentioning, hey in "this" review they "these" more strict points; in "this", "this", "this" reviews editors were asked to disambiguate links or add image alts; or "this" review did not mention "this", "this" GA criteria points). I'll try to not to mention anyone else's review as long as I can. I am quite sure, if you check other reviews, you'll find these points like dabcheck etc being regularly mentioned in other reviews. (see sign below)

Drift

Before someone else comes in and and marks this discussion as "non-constructive" or "discussion going nowhere" I am drifting it (with your permission) to more specific questions

• Though not mentioned in GA criteria clearly, should the basic formatting and errors also be included in GA review? I can create a long list, just a few examples–
  • Dabcheck
  • External links WP:EL or WP:ELNO (not clearly mentioned in GA Criteria (following Template:GATable)
  • Wikilink/Wrong wikilink
  • External link in article body?
  • "Further reading"– what's about (few) books in Further reading without ISBN tag?
  • Sister Project: Error in Sister Project link or missing sister project link (eg. an article has category in Commons but not mentioned in article)
  • Category check
  • Wrong IPA
  • WP:ALSO: an entry duplicated in See Also section which is already linked in article body
  • Too many see also/main templates in an article OR those templates are missing
  • Flagicon in infobox person's nationality parameter

And more...

Though some points are not mentioned in Good article criteria, yet as we are bound to follow WP:MOS and other Wikipedia guidelines right from the time of creating an article, those common and easier points can be mentioned in GA reviews too (whether GA Criteria mentions it or not)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

See the first footnote at the criteria: "Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria;" NB that it does not say, "Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria, plus whatever tools or templates are handy", or "Good articles are only measured against the good article criteria, plus whatever other ideas occur to you.

With the exception of the wrong pronunciation (which is a fact that will sometimes, but not always, fall under either "counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged" and/or "contentious material relating to living persons" and thus require an inline citation), none of the things you mention in your list are required.

Your job as a reviewer is to compare the article to—and only to—the six GA criteria. You may, if you want, make purely optional, strictly non-required suggestions that exceed those six GA criteria (some editors, with FAC in mind, really appreciate it), but you must not require or even appear to require anything beyond the six GA criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Further to that, where have you got the idea that "we are bound to follow WP:MOS and other Wikipedia guidelines right from the time of creating an article"? Lose that idea right away; there is absolutely no obligation on editors to follow guidelines. That's why they're called "guidelines", not "orders". Even at FA level (let alone GA) there's no strict obligation to follow the MOS; the obligation is to follow it unless one has a good reason not to do so. At GA level, the only parts of the MOS that apply are WP:LEAD, WP:LAY, WP:WTA, WP:WAF (in the case of articles on fiction) and WP:EMBED. Judging against anything else is you demanding writers comply with your personal opinions, and you - not they - are the one in breach of policy. Mogism (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for creating what turns out to be the fourth thread related to Talk:District_Railway/GA2 in the last few weeks - I'm looking for an editor to come and give a second opinion to the GA review at Talk:District_Railway/GA2, chiefly to examine the article under the criteria of 'unnecessary detail'. It's currently being a bit of a sticking point.Fayedizard (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

the GA bot does not include the four articles I recently submitted, despite mentioning numerous times via edit summary that he has. Could someone fix this error? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Why it does not add my nominated works. What a bad robot, lol... Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If you put in an incorrect subtopic, it gets confused. You used "Biology" when you should have used "Biology and medicine", so it keeps trying to put things into the non-existent "Biology" subtopic. (Note: subtopics are case sensitive as well.) And, like a stubborn bot, it will keep trying every ten minutes until someone intervenes to fix the GA nominee template on the article's talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I always wrote "Biology" and there were no issues... Why was this changed? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

In the review of the nomination of Marine Parade Community Building, Elekhh requested I add a caption for the lead image, which is in an infobox. My GAs about Singaporean movies (I Not Stupid, Homerun (film) and Money No Enough) have infobox images without captions (the screenshots do have captions), but all were promoted over a year ago and I recognise that movie articles are different from articles about buildings (Pathlight School's lead image has a caption but is not in an infobox). Thus I am requesting clarification on this issue, which may affect my future GAs (or even my existing GAs). --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't saying that infobox images always must have caption, only that in the particular case of the article it would be appropriate. WP:CAPTION is clear that "Not every Wikipedia image needs a caption [...] A very few may be genuinely self-explanatory." In some cases captions in the infobox are necessary, in other cases useful. In the same time infoboxes should be kept to a minimum length, thus I would suggest an one-line caption, specifying which façade we see (i.e. "View from north", or similar). --ELEKHH^T 19:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it appears somewhat obvious to me that it is an external view of the Marine Parade Community Building (but I've never seen the building), if not what is the image doing there (and it would need an explanation)? I can't see any harm in the reviewer asking for clarification, e.g. view from the north/south/east/west, (or taken in 1965, as appropriate) etc. Pyrotec (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a caption stating the view or year may be useful, but should the lack of a caption prevent the article from attaining GA status, if all other issues are addressed? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that the bot is now listing the number of reviews carried out by nominators/reviewers. Where is it getting this information from? Mine, at least, is wrong. J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Mine too. I suspect it has something to do with the count of /GA pages you've created, but I've been reviewing since before we started doing that. —Ed!^(talk) 12:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

[6] perhaps Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I haven't reviewed 71 articles. Something isn't right.--Dom497 (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the bot counts only the /GA pages each user had created. My number is accurate: 79. Although, it may make some mistakes. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The count for Sasata doesn't match his own list of GA reviews; it undercounted him by about 20. I have no idea if my own tally is correct or not, although it's probably in the ballpark.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why have it? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This change was per a request I received. The stats should be relatively accurate, but, it was never going to be as accurate as say, your edit count; so don't take to too personally if the bot is off by a bit. That said, if the bot is off by a large margin (perhaps because you have many reviews under the old system), you can manually change the count here (please note, only change the count; don't suddenly start changing your username because you want your sig in there or something).

If however, all the reviews you have made have been under the new system (i.e. the /GA subpages), and the bot is significantly out, drop me a line (if possible with a list of the pages you have reviewed), and I'll see what I can do --Chris 02:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Mine's off by a factor of about 30%. It lists 36, while I have 51 (44 if you don't count quick fails). Is it just counting the passes? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No, as long as there is a "/GA(whatever number)" subpage, it should be counting it. Does this look more accurate guys? Interestingly, Crisco, you're now on 53; I'll see if I can work out where the extra 2 is coming from. --Chris 05:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • One's a review I'd rather not count as I goofed it terribly. Not sure what the other is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Like better/correct now to me. TBrandley 15:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be showing how many GA reviews have been performed by the person nominating the article. If we want to look out for an help new reviewers, don't we want a count for reviewers, not nominators? I'm not entirely sure why this is here. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Look again, it counts reviews of both nominators and reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right - I must have missed that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not often make specific requests, but I am hoping to have the Woodstock Library article reviewed as soon as possible. I make this request because in one month's time I will be attending a meeting with Multnomah County Library staff to help plan the Wiki Loves Libraries editing event at the Central Library. The purpose of the edit-a-thon will be to reduce the number of MCL-related stubs and remind Wikipedians/participants of the resources available at MCL facilities. If the Woodstock Library (one branch within the MCL system) can be promoted to GA status before then, it will provide a great example for others to follow as they work on other branch articles. The review might have started sooner than later without this request, but I thought I'd make one nonetheless. I expect no corners to be cut with an expedited process! Thank you very much. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I could make time to review it. To start though you might want to nom it, I'm not seeing it on the GAN page. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. See WP:GAN#ART. Regards. TBrandley 01:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

-facepalm- I went to Multnomah County Library instead of the article in question. Never mind me then. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I nominated 2011–12 Columbus Blue Jackets season for GA and it was originally quick failed along with several pages that were given questionable reviews. A user volunteered to review, but some real life stuff must have come up and the second review page has been deleted. On the project page it is still showing that the article is being reviewed by "unknown", but the link is there to start a new review. I waited for the GA bot to fix it, but this might be out of score for it, could someone fix this so it doesn't look like it is being reviewed? Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed; onreview just had to be removed from the template on the talk page. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't realize that--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there an uninvolved experienced editor who could take a look at Talk:Paul Ryan/GA1? An editor who has contributed 52 edits to the article and 276 edits to the article's talk page (the most of any other editor) — and all of them recently — has appointed himself reviewer of the GAN. I am concerned the integrity of the GAN is compromised with such an involved editor as the reviewer, and WP:GAN states, "you cannot review an article if you... have made significant contributions to it prior to the review." Thank you for your consideration. —Eustress ^talk 06:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Disavian (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please give some detail to how the guidelines show this as a problem for the integrity of the GAN process. This seems a serious thing to claim so I would at least like a little elaboration here. This is the second time the same editor has intervened with a GA related process I have initiated. The last when I created a community reassesment for Mitt Romney and they requested speedy close. If I am to withdraw I believe I should at least get clarification on how the current standard as written is being violated. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Basically, the GA reviewer is supposed to be someone detached from the creation or improvement of the article, not one of its editors. It should be obvious why an independent set of eyes is preferred to one closely involved with a topic... is it not? Ideally, we should have reviewers who are familiar enough with the topic or genre to assess things like balance and comprehensiveness, while being neutral on the particulars of any given article. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sure you're a great Good Article reviewer. An excellent one, even. However, GA is designed to be an independent review process. Somewhere you can go to get feedback from an editor that hasn't worked on the article yet (beyond maybe a couple edits). For me, the value of GA isn't the stamp, it's the quality feedback that comes from having someone new and experienced approach the article. Disavian (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I do see where both of you are coming from, but yet don't see where I am being directed to any guideline to show this as an integrity issue. I am being point blank told my integrity is in question. If this is so and I am to withdraw, I need this to be directly stated in direct terms and how I violated these terms. What I see is "independent set of eyes preferred to one closely involved with a topic" and "GA is designed to be an independent review process. Somewhere you can go to get feedback from an editor that hasn't worked on the article yet (beyond maybe a couple edits)". However what I see on Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles only states "..any registered user can review: multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required.". It says about reviewers "A reviewer should be able to read the article critically and apply the Good article criteria fairly." yet no one is demonstrating how I would not be applying criteria fairly or how guideline for reviewer is being violated. I can't help but wonder if this is just a sort of misinterpretation of the guidelines that has simply been fostered for some reason or another for a while, but I don't see the violation or line I am crossing to have my integrity questioned...or worse, that I am damaging the integrity of the GAN process.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the policy as it is stated on the main GA nomination page: "[Y]ou cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review.

I read this policy to mean, literally what it says. "Prior to the review", limits further what "significant" means. In the past 7 days prior to this review, I have made 1 edit [7]. That is NOT a significant amount.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

...although you did make 50 edits the week before [8], but that's splitting hairs I think. I think it would be detrimental to the GA process for editors who are so involved in an article to be the ones reviewing for GA. My reading of "Reviewers may not review articles that they have edited significantly" is that reviewers may not review articles that they have edited significantly... Fayedizard (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if you're going to be hair splitting you might note that I began highest at first with one high traffic day exception and dwindled down to almost nothing. And I don't think I will consider your argumentment if you just drop off part of the policy as how you read it. But thank you for your input. I don't think it added anything however, no disrespect to you.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The policy cited above speaks explicitly against editors doing GA reviews of articles to which they have made significant contributions prior to the review. What is "significant" is open to interpretation, but I would argue -- and I think others might agree -- that 52 edits constitute a significant contribution to the article. I fail to understand how "prior to the review" limits what "significant" means. If it were the intention of the policy to limit the scope of "prior to the review", the policy would say, "in the week prior to the review" or "immediately prior to the review" or "close to the beginning of the review". The policy puts no such limitation on "prior", and thus "prior to the review" must be taken to mean significant contributions at any time before the review. The fact that you have made just one edit in the past week is hence an unsuccessful argument for compliance with the policy. I may change my mind if presented with sound arguments to the contrary, but for the moment I think the best course would be to abstain from reviewing this article in accordance with the policy.--Batard0 (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not explicitly stated. What it must be taken to mean is not at all clear. The point is, the guideline allows for contributions to have been made, just not significant ones. It does not state what significant is, and NO WHERE does it state that a consensus of editors can remove a reviewer over what is "significant" and especially NOT with only 53 edits TOTAL in the entire history of the article and one edit in the past week. On top of all this an accusation of compromising integrity of this process. The guideline does state that "multiple votes, consensus building, and committees are not required". I am not trying to be a problem. There is simply no basis to remove me as reviewer and no reason for me to withdraw. The nominator does not object and I am not an unreasonable candidate to review this type of biography. There is backlog and this is an unreasonable obstacle to place with no true basis argued but interpretations of what individuals see guideline as meaning yet, for some odd reason, guidelines just do not state these criteria. I suggest the guidelines be revised after a consensus discussion on how to ammend the current reviewer requirements.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It is clear. Reviewers in any of the peer review processes are supposed to be uninvolved with the articles they're reviewing. 50+ edits to the article and talk page edits running into the hundreds is not that. Oh-but-I-only-made-1-edit-a-week-before-the-review is pretty derisory wiki-lawyering tbh, and against both the spirit and letter of the guidelines. bridies (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, can I check a fact? (I'm aware I've not been helpful so far), given "There is simply no basis to remove me as reviewer" - I'm not sure if this is true (it would be great to get an experience person who knows) but certainly I understand that if the consensus is that your reviewing this article compromises the process, then the article can, once your review is complete (presuming you don't fail the article) be immediately nominated for Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment, and re-reviewed by a non-contributing editor (where, I presume, the good article status can be stripped if it turns out that the criteria are not met) . Have I understood this correctly? or am I missing something simple? Fayedizard (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

To Amadscientist: I appreciate that the meaning of "significant" is not explicitly stated, but I think we can likely agree that your contributions are significant by any objective measure. You say you have made "only 53 edits TOTAL in the entire history of the article", but that qualifies you as the ninth-most-active editor of the article among more than 500 people who have edited it, according to its contribution history. You are, moreover, the top contributor to its talk page. If this is not significant, what would you suggest is? In any event, this indeed forms a clear basis for withdrawal from the review under policy that states significant contributors should not review articles. The practical question of the backlog and other related issues are best discussed elsewhere, as they fall outside the scope of a discussion on GA policies.--Batard0 (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'd have thought the "prior" caveat merely exists to indicate that a reviewer may edit the article as part of the review process; not to indicate some arbitrary time frame (why 7 days?) out with which it's fine and within which it's not. bridies (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I was incorrect about that and remember a discussion I had seen on being able to edit and contribute while reviewing. However I will add that it isn't edit counts, or tool counts that are considered, but contributions. Do I have significant contributions to the article?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure to whom you're replying but... you're saying you've made 50+ edits to the article and what, 250+ edits to the talk page, and have not managed to contribute anything of significance? Really? bridies (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's always been my understanding as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Mine too. I've often made straightforward edits/fixes after picking up an article to review and as I review it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of even a single GAN where I haven't made some some changes during the review, and I very much doubt that I'd ever come across a GAN that couldn't be improved by a few judicious tweaks not worth flagging up during the review. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Slightly outside of scope

Because I'm pretty new with GA's I have a query about the Ryan GA - given Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:Paul_Ryan.23Consensus_poll and the news articles mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conservatism#Paul_Ryan_needs_our_help.21.21.21 at the general mood of the talk page of Paul Ryan itself, I would have presumed that the article would have failed GA on the stability criteria. Is this a reasonable action per the criteria? ...and if so does the article's stability go so far as to warrant a quickfail under criterion 4 of Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria? Fayedizard (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Excited debate or heated discussion on the talk pages and noticeboards does not make the article itself into "the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars." Only edits to the article can do that.

Looking at the last week's worth of editing, I see about eight reversions made by good faith editors (not counting vandals). It does not look very stable to me. I think the question hinges on whether the various changes causing instability have been each and severally dealt with on the talk page. Are there "unresolved" issues? Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is, and will be, hopelessly unstable until after the 2012 Presidential election in November, to say the least. The problem with the GA criteria is that it doesn't specifically address articles that are rapidly developing because of current events; WP:GACR#5 only stipulates because of edit wars or content disputes, while quick-fail criterion #5 fails any articles that are reflecting current events. That is a gap that needs to be bridged, but in the meantime, I would follow on the assumption that the GA standards are slightly less than that of FA standards and apply the same stability criteria there.

Given, I would say that Barack Obama wholly fails the stability requirements of FAs or even of GAs, but there has been so much back-and-forth about its status (I count at least 8 FARs on that article, and given that it passed in 2004 under much lower standards), I'm sure I would be fighting a losing battle there because of politics (both Wiki- and real life) and recentism. --MuZemike 06:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If an article about a new movie can't be considered "stable" before the film opens to the public, and if that same article can't be considered to have "main aspects" until critics' commentary and reviews are added, then a candidate in a major national election likely can't have a stable article crafted either until the election results are tallied, IMHO. It's not a reflection of the quality or quantity of information that's in the article, but if the article can reasonably be expected to change significantly over the next few months or even days based on coverage from reliable sources, I wouldn't think it should be nominated for review. That said, I wouldn't say that any article on a candidate for office fails the stability test; it's more a measure of the specific candidacy and the level of attention it will attract. Imzadi 1979 → 06:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that we might consider a brief window (a month? two?) of "statutory instability" before an election, but politicians with short terms in office are basically always dealing with the next election. You wrap up this one and start the next, with maybe a couple of weeks in between. It would be kind of silly to say that we can only nominate articles about the members of the US House of Representatives only during the Decembers of even-numbered years or after the politician has sworn not to run for re-election. They're basically running a campaign under all other circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I said that specific candidacies will attract enough attention to lead to regular developments. Rep. Dan Benishek, who's running for his second term representing the 1st District of Michigan will likely not attract the level of media scrutiny to to cause with the stability of his article. Any campaign developments should be of the type that the article can be updated in short order. However, major national campaigns will have many developments on a daily or near-daily basis with commentary in the media from enough angles making integration of information nearly constant. In that case, the article won't reach the potential for stability until after the campaign ends. Imzadi 1979 → 22:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed requiring that all reviewers by inexperienced reviewers have a second opinion from an experienced reviewer, before the nomination can be passed or failed. The intention is to make the process more pleasant for both nominators (who would be less angry at mistakes by inexperienced reviewers) and inexperienced reviewers (who would learn from their mistakes and not be bitten by nominators). Of course, details such as the definition of "experienced reviewer" and whether there should be any additional restrictions on inexperienced reviewers, can be worked out if we decide to adopt this proposal.

To show how the proposal would be beneficial, I gave some feedback on Thehistorian10's GAN review of Hwa Chong Institution. He correctly pointed out that two paragraphs were unreferenced and I would have appreciated an elaboration on what he considered "jargon". However, he did not notice that several references contained dead links and incorrectly believed that WikiProject class ratings should influence the harshness of a review. I appreciate that two common mistakes that I pointed out (class ratings and rejecting non-English sources) have been added to the What the Good article criteria are not essay.

Could a trial be conducted for my nomination of Ya Kun Kaya Toast? An inexperienced reviewer would conduct a thorough review and request a second opinion. Only after an experienced reviewer checks the review and gives feedback on it, would the nomination be passed, failed or placed on hold. This short article would not take long to review, but there are plenty of potential mistakes for an inexperienced reviewer to make and learn from, as the article is about a Singaporean food business.

Anyone interested in being the inexperienced reviewer? Anyone interested in being the experienced reviewer? If this trial is successful, I may request another trial for my upcoming nominations and may try being the inexperienced reviewer for a few short articles that counter systemic bias.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a good thought, but couldn't it simply be something strongly encouraged in the instructions rather than firmly required? I asked for a second opinion on my first review simply because it seemed like the right thing to do; I wanted to make sure I was covering all the bases, and another editor was kind enough to come along and weigh in. In general, why wouldn't good-faith editors take similar steps? In other words, are there good examples of new reviewers coming in and passing/failing articles without applying the criteria correctly without seeking second opinions and where the requirement to seek a second opinion would definitely have helped things? --Batard0 (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who has followed the discussions on this page over the past couple of months would have seen plenty of examples, notably Talk:District Railway/GA1 (reviewer deemed book sources unreliable) and Talk:Krista Branch/GA1 (reviewer insisted on a certain structure), and some where I was the nominator: Talk:Xiaxue/GA1 (self-explanatory), Talk:Xiaxue/GA2 (reviewer said articles must go through C-class and B-class before a GA nomination), Talk:Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore/GA1 (reviewer requested addition of unencyclopedic information) and Talk:Hwa Chong Institution/GA1 (reviewer did not notice over two dozen dead reference links). Two reviewers had to be banned for disruption and during the backlog elimination drive, many articles that clearly did not meet the GA criteria were nevertheless passed by inexperienced reviewers.

There are new editors who file a request for adminship, in good faith but not realising that they are simply not ready to be an administrator. Similarly, there are new reviewers who, despite good faith, do not realise that they have lots to learn, and thus do not request a second opinion. The result is a substandard article attaining GA status, a nominator misled or infuriated by the poor review, or both.

Whether requesting second opinions should be required, or simply encouraged, by inexperienced reviewers, and the definition of "inexperienced", may become clearer after a trial run. If you are an inexperienced reviewer, would you like to be the inexperienced reviewer of Ya Kun Kaya Toast, doing a review and then requesting a second opinion? If you are an experienced reviewer, would you like to provide the second opinion for the inexperienced reviewer of Ya Kun Kaya Toast?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would support putting language in the instructions saying something like, "First-time reviewers are strongly encouraged to read the reviews of experienced GA reviewers and seek second opinions before passing or failing articles." I myself am rather inexperienced, however, having reviewed only 14 articles, so perhaps others will have better input. --Batard0 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

An easy option might be to be impose a rule that nobody without let's say five GAs under their belt is allowed to conduct a GA review. But of course given the way Wikipedia is (mis)run that would never happen. Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

From the above discussion (which is resolved), I never got any direction as to how to withdraw from a review. I have three reviews started but have some medical issues keeping me from being on the computer long enough to do a complete review at this time and wonder if the only choice is to move the page to GA1 or GA2 page as was done with the above situation. Is this something requiring an admin or is there something we as reviewers can do to back away without adding to a GA count?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Went ahead and deleted the pages since the reviews hadn't been started. Usually that's the easiest way but only works if it's not an abandonment type situation. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a pointer to a discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to point out that the GAN report has not been refreshed since early morning on September 3, and there hasn't been any response to the note I posted on the StatisticianBot talk page. If someone knows another way to get in touch with someone who can get the bot running again, please pursue it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's running again. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys - still looking for a second opinion for the talk:District_Railway/GA2 review - chiefly answering the question - is the article too detailed at the moment for GA? (and, of course, any other details I've missed...) Cheers, Fayedizard (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

could someone blank or delete Talk:Myxogastria/GA1 as some ip opened it. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Rschen7754 19:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The review there has stalled; it was also the reviewer's first review, and a more experienced second opinion would be welcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Could someone look into the review of Bahrain? 0pen$0urce, a Novice Editor said he will review it 2 months 7 days ago, but till this day he didn't make a single comment. He was reminded twice to which he said he will review shortly, yet four days after the last time he was reminded, I can't see a single comment, in fact he only made three edits after he said he'll review the article, two of them to reply to me on his talk page. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Left another comment. If he doesn't show progress in a day or two ping me and I can delete the review page. --Rschen7754 17:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted it; actually it had only been one month rather than two, but even so, even a start should never take that long. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes Thank you, and yes it was actually 27 days which is not even a month. I didn't locate definitive guidance about a set timetable for a review. It is a matter of opinion. Also goading and harassing a contributor is not an effective tactic. A good article to review Civility. Good luck with your nomination. 0pen$0urce (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Erm, 27 days to begin a review after saying "I'll do this" is beyond the pale in my opinion. The article could have been waiting anywhere from two weeks to four months, and then the review takes another month to start? That'd drive anyone to worry, and another reviewer could have selected the article and finished the review in that time. And three notices in 27 days is "goading and harassing" if they're neutrally and politely worded. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

0pen$0urce, we normally expect reviewers to begin the review on the same day that they create the review page. There is no need to create the page until you have something to say about the state of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

No we don't. I typically create the review page immediately with a note to say that I'll be along with detailed notes over the course of the following day or two. Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Normally" does not mean "in every single instance". Most reviewers begin posting to the review page on the same day that they create the review page. It is the normal practice, not a mandatory one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not my normal practice, and hence I'd be surprised to see that there was any "expectation", as you claim there is. Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that it now displays the number of reviews a user has done next to the nomination. However, nothing is displaying next to my name, I've only done like 9 or 10 reviews so it's not a big deal, but I would like them to display so people can tell I have been through this before and don't potentially decide to skip a review because I'm not helping/inexperienced. I can be a bit slow so is there something I need to do to get this to generate next to my name, I tried looking at the instructions and didn't see anything? Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We now have review counts next to people's names. Why not have a nomination count too? It'd give you a sense of whether people are primarily nominators, reviewers or both. Just a thought. --Batard0 (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I need to ask, is this seriously necessary? I'm not really happy be pointed out that I've sent over 200 articles to GAN, but only reviewed 34 (keep in mind, this is divided over 6.5 years). I stopped doing reviews that aren't by request at this point. Just don't feel comfortable with the idea that these numbers are here. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 12:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about it personally, but I have to admit you have a point. There is a potential for these stats to bias the selection of articles to be reviewed, which is also problematic. Might it be better to have these stats as a separate list at its own page? Resolute 13:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. Wouldn't it be good to bias the selection of articles for review in favor of people who have themselves reviewed more articles? This creates an obvious incentive to do reviews, which is badly needed given the backlog. You should get out of it what you put into it. --Batard0 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've stopped reviewing non-request stuff because personally, I run into trouble committing to this stuff, and I have a tendency to run my mouth over the fact that articles need serious work. If I want to only review 34 articles, and nominate over 200, it is more in my power. If it means I have to wait longer? Fine. I've gone 62 days between reviews before, and personally I don't mind. I am badly against quid pro quo because I struggle at DYK reviewing (I've only nominated one thing there in the last year and a half, and it goes on the MP tonight.) I am personally a nitpick machine, and the peer review system works better for me to do myself because I don't have to commit to a span. I just don't like having it displayed publicly because the potential for attacks that I abuse the system, and it isn't fair.Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 04:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of the counts either, and if they inhibit nominators that can surely not be a good thing. Malleus Fatuorum 04:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Lucky102 (talk · contribs)

The "review" at Talk:Milan/GA1 consists of exactly:

• I find this to be a good article, passing all of the good article criteria.

This results in Talk:Milan's GAN notice stating:

• the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

The article has not actually been tagged as a GA or listed. I believe this "review" needs to be cleared so that the article is open to a proper review. Wikipedia:Good article nominations#How to review an article calls for a "detailed review" and this simply isn't. Milan, any GAN, deserves better. nb: I'm not saying the article should fail, but I found minor things to fix after this "passed", and so did Malleus). I'll let Lucky102 know about this post (and Malleus;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the review page as I agree; that review isn't sufficient or fair to the nominator. Perhaps you could visit Lucky102's talk page and give them some friendly tips r.e. reviews - I see they have contributed to FAR's as well with trivial supports. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am rather interested in what that they have to say for themselves when next they edit. I noticed this user right out of the gate. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That I found a few things to fix should be no reflection on the state of the article; I can find fault with anything. The review though was clearly inadequate. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same article? Much of Milan isn't sourced at all. Am I missing something? Span (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Theatre, film and drama section include television? I would suggest "Theatre, film, and television," since the use of the word "drama" here seems to be redundant with "theatre." I would suggest that change or just make the "Episodes" into a general Television section. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, I would suggest adding three subsections: one for Film, one for Theatre, and one for Television... -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I want to remind people that unilateral changes break the page, so the best procedure is to figure out what the best change is (if any), arrange to change the GA bot to handle the new topic name and/or subtopic names, and then make the switchover at an agreed upon time so the bot and page are in alignment. As to the proposal, there are other areas being covered, so we'll want to retain some form of "Other" subtopic to take whatever's left over. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Then I propose renaming "Theatre, film and drama" to "Theatre, film and television" and making subsections "Theatre," "Film," "Television," and "Radio and other." -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Or "Drama, film and television," if that better encompasses radio. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I made this proposal here: Wikipedia talk:Good articles#.22Theatre.2C film and drama.22 section change proposal. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I passed Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens which is a wonderful article about a photographic lens, I went to place it in a photography or camera section and found it doesn't exist. In all seriousness, I think we need a new section because while photography is an art, it can be more mundane, and we lack such a section about photography. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• If we start a Photography section at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Art_and_architecture it could represent both sides of the lens with Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens, More Demi Moore and possibly Demi's Birthday Suit. There are some photographer bios like Ernest Brooks, Alberto Henschel, Hiroh Kikai and Hans Namuth that could also contribute to a photography section.
• We may consider putting this lens in Wikipedia:Good_articles/Engineering_and_technology#Computing_and_engineering since that is probably where a telescope would go and this is similar type of technology
• Alternatively, we may consider Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Physics, which is where optics should go.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

After waking up, I am now also a bit concerned about the driveby feel of this review. There were only minor changes by the reviewer before passing this complicated article that is outside my area of expertise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

GA is not FA, I'm not into dictating your prose and making massive changes. I also clearly outlined what I would expect of a FA level in the article which is far more technical and that I would require detailed graphs (currently accessible via links) such as the MTF chart. However, you have clearly provided a detailed account of vignetting and chromatic aberration, of which are the most important next to resolution. Distortion on the lens is also detailed, with its possibly major flaw being cited as 'foreground subjects appear abnormally large'. The critical commentary specifically notes the flaws and what it is ideal for 'car photographs'. You may miss a note about photographers being able to use this camera in tight places, but that comment is really ambiguous. Overall, you give the details, back it up with numbers and I went and checked the facts and came away from the article with understanding of the lens. That's the important thing, I am confident I understand the lens in enough to detail to base future response on it, this is not some Amazon review, this is a detailed, technical overview of the lens which addresses its flaws and gives specific examples. If spending an hour or two reviewing the material isn't enough for you (and another 30 minutes to run through the checklist afterwards) then put it up for a second look. I just follow the guidelines and there was nothing to hamper the GA status. I should note my first (or one of my first) GA reviews is a featured article with relatively minor changes. And I fully note that this won't make it to FA in its current state which requires it to be more polished and filled out. But whatever, its not a B-class to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A while back, I asked some experienced reviewers how long they spent working on reviews, and one or two hours seemed to be the normal level, at least for articles within their usual area of experience and in decent initial condition. This suggests that Chris' review is pretty typical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped for more feedback. This article is outside of my area of expertise. I was just disappointed to receive so little feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a note on photography; Pale Blue Dot would also be a worthwhile article to consider for it, should its nature as a photograph trump its connection to astronomy. GRAPPLE X 19:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a question relating specifically to music (album/single) articles. There seems to be an arbitrary thing about when an album/single should be nominated. Some people seem to think an artist needs to move on to a new album and begin a new single chronology before an album should be nominated. There's a similar line of thought about singles, that they shouldn't be nominated until the artist has moved onto the next one. A couple of people have noticed that Glassheart, an upcoming album by Leona Lewis that I have been working on is in good condition in anticipation of a GA nomination in the near future. My question is as the lead contributor to an album, if I feel confident that it is well written when is the correct time for it to be nominated? I'd automatically assume after release because the track listing is incomplete and there are no reviews yet etc but when after release is the correct time? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

In a thread above, it was noted that Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM lens was passed and no category has been chosen to list it at WP:GA. Please vote for one of the following categories:

1. Wikipedia:Good_articles/Engineering_and_technology#Computing_and_engineering (along with telescopes and microscopes, presumably)
2. Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Physics (optics is a subfield of physics)
3. create a new photography subsection in Wikipedia:Good_articles/Art_and_architecture (with Ernest Brooks, Alberto Henschel, Hiroh Kikai, Hans Namuth, Pale Blue Dot, More Demi Moore and possibly Demi's Birthday Suit) --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Votes

Engineering technology- seems similar to the numerous articles about various technology.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we can defer to the nominator (the one who did all the work) regarding which section to categorize it. maclean (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

This editor failed Garfield: User talk:Lemsterboy - apparently he's had an account on wp about three hours or so. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

p.s. see Talk:Garfield/GA1 MathewTownsend (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You are not going to like this.... but I do not know if it will pass as it seems to need a lot work on prose and missing content. So much original research appears to be in the article because it is not cited by reliable secondary resources. It needs a lot of work even from a cursory glance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

While the review was not well done, I endorse the fail outcome. maclean (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think you're right that I shouldn't worry about it, since the correct outcome resulted. Nice, practical approach! MathewTownsend (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In the GAN review of Carr Hill conducted by Malleus Fatuorum, a disagreement arose as to the interpretation of WP:UKCITIES, or, more specifically, an interpretation of the following statement contained within that guideline:

"Articles should almost always conform to the basic structure of a lead/infobox followed by history, government, geography, demography and economy, as those sections contain much of the basic information about any settlement. Beyond that, editors are advised to come to a consensus that works best for the settlement in question. Additional or alternative headings are listed under the "Optional headings" section below."

The disagreement arose regarding the inclusion (or, more specifically, my not having included) a section on 'Religion'. The following exchange took place:

Are the essential sections listed, namely a lead/infobox followed by history, government, geography, demography and economy, accompanied by some optional/discretionary (emphasis added to indicate my interpretation) additional sections enough to satisfy GAC 3a, or are all of the primary sections in WP:UKCITIES 'strictly necessary to meet GA's broadness requirement'? I would welcome the community's views... Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Meetthefeebles nominated the article and "MF" reviewed it and (apparently after corrective actions were done) awarded the article GA status. It is worth noting that if editor's consider that the GA was awarded in error, then the article can be taken to WP:GAR. Since I've not reviewed the article nor the review, I'm not going to take sides on what appears to be disagreement between the nominator and the reviewer. Compliance with WP:UKCITIES is not a requirement imposed by GA, the relevant requirement is "broadness" (an infobox is not a GA requirement, for instance). Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Pyrotec. For the avoidance of doubt, the issue I have raised is not related in any way to the 'quality' of the review or anything of that nature. It is, rather, a point of process/interpretation; namely, whether Malleus, I or neither of us is reading the UKCITIES guidance correctly as regards application to c.3 of the GAC. I ask simply so that a. I know whether or not to include specific information in articles I nominate in future and b. That I can conduct GAR correctly myself. Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll rephrase my comment. Firstly, I did mean WP:GAR, not WP:GAN - if GA status was awarded in error the re-review process is WP:GAR, not WP:GAN. A Good article is not required to conform to UKCITIES in order to became a GA. Carr Hill is a UK settlement, a suburb, so the reviewer can use UKCITIES as guidance in trying to make a decision as to whether the article meets the broadness requirement of WP:WIAGA, but the reviewer does not have to assess the article against the guidance in UKCITIES. In a disagreement such as this the reviewer is "right" unless he is obviously wrong. MF could (for the sake of argument) have been the nominator and you could have awarded it GA-status based on your interpretation of UKCITIES. Provided the article is of GA-quality and the review is "fit for purpose" it does not really matter what the "correct interpretation" of UKCITIES is (and the reviewer can suggest that an infobox is needed, but can't fail the nomination against the WP:WIAGA if there is no infobox). A biography of a living person should comply with BIO (to avoid problems), and BIO can be used to assess broadness, but full compliance with BIO not a mandatory requirement for GA; and its the same for any other (non-WP:GAN) WP project guidelines. Pyrotec (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So it is reviewer discretion then? If the reviewer chooses to ignore the guidance in UKCITIES when conducting a review, that is fine. At the other end of the spectrum, if a reviewer decides that, for c.3 of the GA criteria, the guidance has to be followed to the letter, that is also fine. Is that the correct position? Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not to pass a GAN is always at reviewer discretion. But ignoring WP:CITIES completely does carry a risk that someone may challenge the review at GAR on the grounds that it is insufficiently broad to meet criterion 3a. We also discussed a Public services section you'll recall, which I didn't insist on, as you know. One of the triggering factors for me in this specific case was that the article discussed the local Catholic church and a scandal involving the last priest, which for me led to a very unbalanced "Religion" section (that material wasn't then in a separate section). Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Malleus, its at the reviewer's discretion. Obviously if the reviewer gets it badly wrong, complaints do get made on this talkpage and sometimes an "failed" article gets resubmitted to WP:GAN without any corrective actions or a "passed" article goes to WP:GAR and gets reassessed (or failed). There certainly are articles at GA that deserved their GA-status, but have at best "incompetent reviews". Malleus has done a lot of GANs both as a reviewer and a nominator for far longer than I have and has considerable FAC experience: so as a reviewer his judgement is likely to be sound and backed up with justification(s) - so I would never class them with the "incompetent reviews" that I refer to in this paragraph. Pyrotec (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not for one moment suggesting that the review was incompetent; in fact, it was a very comprehensive and useful review as I said to Malleus at the time and also afterwards on his talk page. I don't wish the discussion to become sidetracked on issues of competency or experience– I am questioning neither in MF's case– nor am I questioning the review itself, which was sound. What I am questioning, however, is the statement that was made by MF regarding UKCITIES as it bears on GAN, namely that: "I believe that it[a new section] is strictly necessary to meet GA's broadness requirement, as it's one of the primary sections included in WP:UKCITIES." I genuinely do not know whether or not that position is accurate and would like to know if it is because this will influence my own future edits, nominations and reviews. Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement at GAN for an article to comply with (non-WP GAN) wikiproject guidelines for Trains, ships, UK cities, Rivers, basket-weaving, football, etc, in order to be awarded GA (or the converse). It only has to comply with WP:WIAGA, but there is further guidance in the "See also" section of that article. However, a reviewer is entitled to say I have concerns over (in this case) the WP:GAN requirement of broadness: ".... I believe that this is missing and I would reasonably expect to find it in a GA-class article on this topic, and here is my justification ....". Furthermore, "MF" seems to be making it clear that he is not reviewing the article against personal preferences (which some reviewers seem to do), but against a set of WP guidelines. I would have concerns if a reviewer wrote words to the effect ".... you need this, it's in the Muckle Flugga article and that is a GA (Note: it's not by the way) so it's also needed in this one ....". I believe that all MF is basically saying is: ".... I believe that this is missing, it aught to be there, and here is my justification ....". An GAN review is also a personal review, another reviewer may well find "different faults" and require different corrective actions, so an article gaining GA might well have subtle changes depending on who reviewed it. Doing a good review is difficult, its not just a case of ticking boxes - MF does not use the boxes template, I often do, but that again is a personal preference, and reveiwing does involve making subjective judgement(s). I'm sorry, but the first paragraph of this section does read a bit like a dispute over what the UKCities guidelines state or intend to state: if that is the disagreement it should be taken to UK Geo, it has nothing to do with WP:GAN or reviewing GANs. Pyrotec (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue I have then is that there is a very large, inherent contradiction. On the one hand; UKCITIES is not a GA requirement, but, at the same time, a reviewer is entitled to state that a failure to follow it strictly is a ground to fail at GAN. By your presumpiton, what Malleus is saying is that "I believe that this is missing, it ought to be there, and my justification is UKCITIES" but, at the same, time, UKCITIES is not a GAN requirement (which I agree with, by the way). That is rather contrary advice to give to a relative newcomer to GAN like myself; how am I supposed to conduct reviews of nominations if, on the one hand, something is not a GA requirement ergo I could use it as I wish but, on the other, I could fail a review for not satisfying the non-GA requirement? I appreciate that there is a natural subjectivity in the process but that seems very wide to me. And this is a GA issue (in my opinion) because it involves the interpretation and use of guidelines like UKCITIES in conducting a review at GAN with a view to satisfying GAN criteria. To reiterate; the dispute between Malleus and myself took place in the review, which has been concluded and is not in dispute at all. It is this point of interpretation that I am trying to clarify. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

At this stage I would consider keeping in mind the ultimate purpose of the GA project: improving the encyclopedia. Conformity with WikiProject guidelines is not a GA requirement, and a GA nomination shouldn't be failed on that basis alone. Having said that, I think the nominator ought to make an effort to bring it in conformity with the guidelines simply because that (in theory) ought to make the article better. Time spent discussing the minutiae of whether it should be considered is probably better spent simply improving the article. --Batard0 (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit clash) I consider Meetthefeebles' summary not quite right, or perhaps mostly not quite right! I also agree with Batard0. UKCITIES is "best practice" guidance on writing articles of that type. I also consider it extremely useful advice. What I'm saying is that if someone decides not to follow UKCITIES and misses out "important" information the nomination could (if justified) be put On Hold or failed (reviewer's decision) under the "broadness" requirement of WP:WIAGA, i.e. criteria 3(a), and a helpful reviewer could suggest that the corrective action is to add the missing information as per UKCITIES (but the reason for (eventual?) failure is NOT non-compliance with UKCITIES, it is non-compliance with WP:GAN criteria 3(a) and/or 3(b)). If you review a nomination and fail it for not complying with UKCITIES, then you are not reviewing it against the requirements of WP:WIAGA, and the nominator could take it to WP:GAR: and in such cases the reviewer can and does come under criticism for poor reviews. You could for instance have all the information in the article suggested by UKCITIES, but have the sections arranged in a different order: the reviewer might ask for the sections to be ordered as per UKCITIES but can't fail the nomination for that reason if you decline. I assume that you are UK-based (but that is not important), if you drive in the UK you should follow the Highway Code, if you don't you could (in some circumstances) go to court on charges of alleged careless, dangerous or reckless driving: the charge is not failure to follow the Highway Code, but failure to follow the code can be used as a basis for one or more of those charges. It's somewhat similar with doing GAN reviews: the reviewer is assumed to be familiar with the subject area and (preferably) have access to the references. If you wish to review UKCITIES-type articles then you should have a mental picture of what to expect in the article and it should be relevant to the article, and UKCITIES can also be used. (For example, I live in a village that has one parish church and one former chapel turned into a home, but if I lived in an English city, there could be two cathedral's (C. of E. and Roman Catholic), several parish churches, Mormon, Methodist, Baptist, a Mosque, a Polish church and a Serbian Orthodox church). If I don't have that background knowledge, I should not be reviewing articles of that type, since I can't evaluate the two broadness criteria 3(a) and 3(b). There are reviewer's passing articles with a review such as "Cool, Great, GA, congratulations", but that is not reviewing it's rubber stamping. There are also reviewers reviewing nominations against personal preferences, which is also wrong. There is nothing wrong with a reviewer making suggestions for improving the article, but it should be made clear what are non-mandatory suggestions and what are necessary "corrective actives" needed to obtain GA. Doing a good review is difficult and my view is that people who don't know how to do reviews should not be doing reviews. That I admit is somewhat unhelpful to a new editor, and it is strongly suggested that a potential reviewer should have nomination experience before starting reviews. There is mentoring and that is mentioned somewhere (but it does not seem to be on the WP:GAN page). Pyrotec (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to clarify something I said in the review: "I believe that it [a new section] is strictly necessary to meet GA's broadness requirement, as it's one of the primary sections included in WP:UKCITIES." By "strictly" I didn't mean to imply that every article on a UK settlement should contain a section for every one of WP:UKCITIES sections for it to meet criterion 3a; what I meant was that by a strict interpretation of WP:UKCITIES it should. And neither did I mean that every article on a UK township must contain those headings, as opposed to that material under whatever headings seem appropriate for the case in hand. Whether or not my own interpretation would have been strict is a matter for speculation, as the review has now closed and the article is listed. I see no reason in principle why a case couldn't be made that there was no need for pretty much any of WP:UKCITIES' sections, but that case would have to be made. For instance, I'd have different expectations of an article on an abandoned or depopulated village than I would of a populated suburb. In the specific case of Carr Hill my position was that the material already in the article covering religion was inadequate, as it only mentioned a closed Catholic church and a scandal involving the last priest, which when compared to the level of detail given in the Demography section stuck out like a sore thumb to me. Basically, I'd say that anyone reviewing an article on a UK settlement should be asking themselves why that article contains no information on one of WP:UKCITIES primary sections (whether that's in a separate section or not), and if its omission is justifiable in that particular case.
  I'm not sure I see what general guidance can be given here other than what's already been given, unsatisfactory as that may be. Having said that, I think that 3a is generally easier to assess, given the existence of guides such as WP:UKCITIES than the prose requirement, 1a. What seems "clear and concise" to one reviewer may seem like the manic scribblings of a deranged moron to another. Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• Meetthefeebles, it doesn't really matter what UKCITIES says. If a reviewer believes that a section on ==Foo== is necessary to meet the breadth requirement, then it is. A WikiProject WP:Advice page is just a handy shortcut to figuring out what most people thing is necessary to meet that GA requirement. To the extent that it made you believe that compliance with UKCITIES itself was necessary, the comment was perhaps misleadingly expressed, which is unfortunate, but MF was right to insist on whatever content he believed necessary to be "broad in coverage". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Could someone take a second look at the reviews of Talk:Nonviolent Communication/GA1, and Talk:Politics and Prose/GA1? One review consists of (in total) "ummm.. just another bookstore, nothing really special, kinda long, try to shorten it, and really boring,". In a similar vein are Talk:Annie Hall/GA1 and Talk:Milan/GA1. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing these up. All of them are flawed to a degree in the sense that the user is not applying the GA criteria (at least it's not evident in the text of the reviews). Nonviolent Communication has a few {{citation needed}} tags, which arguably is grounds for a quickfail, and Milan has some similar citation issues, but the reviewer doesn't seem to be basing pass/fail decisions on any guidelines. I'll leave a friendly note on the user's talk page. --Batard0 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

These reviews are, at best, seriously misguided. I'd support deleting them, allowing a more experienced reviewer to take on the articles. J Milburn (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

This is probably the best course, under the circumstances. I would support it, while trying not to discourage the original reviewer. It may be a case of the reviewer honestly not knowing/applying the full guidelines. --Batard0 (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sugar/GA1 is another article where this reviewer has made some difficult to understand comments and then seems to have left the review in the air. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

something like sourcing issue as one example is automatically expected to be quickfail according to the guidelines. if someone has a problem with the conclusion of an article, they can just renom it and pass or fail it. deleting comments is a bad idea. i feel my reviews are spectacular.

as for the "seems to have left the review in the air" -- that's okay, i felt that another reviewer should make a conclusion. you can also see Batard0's talk page for additional comments. i honstly believe this is a non-issue and that assumptions made here are incrediably mistaken, but don't worry about it, i don't hav much time to do much contributing or reviewing anyhow, and pretty much none for chit-chatting on disagreemnts.

another edit -- and looking quickly back on this talk page, it looks like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#User:Lucky102_.26.26_Talk:Milan.2FGA1 was passed when it shouldnt have, i had failed it most recently or at least i think i hav, dont remember, since this is the accurate conclusion, as the last editor said, much of the article wasnt even scoured, "am i missing something?" -- it's for the nom to read the guidelines and realize the basics, not for the reviewers to have to menion every single obvious and tedious point.

moreover just so you understand clearly that this is not onesided (since it seems i have to outline every single thing in this world for fear of every instance of misunderstanding)-- if i was the nom, i would take exactly the same positiion, it's for me to realize tihs isnt ga quality, instead of blaming teh review for not giving a 10page detail law review-like essay. and since i dont haev the time to be checking back on this --that means how you perceive the situation will automatically become popular, even if they're msitaken from the outsider's, and insider's, point of view that you have, nice isnt it?

Waveclaira (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC) 

I'm sorry, but your reviews are not "spectacular", no matter how you feel. They have little to do with the criteria, and some of your suggestions are very odd. If you do not have time to offer a full review or follow up on reviews, so be it, but perhaps you should consider not actually starting them. Further, while it is the job of the nominator to ensure that the article meets the criteria, it is the job of the reviewer to explain why it does not- you can say until you're blue in the face that "it's for [the nominator] to realize tihs isnt ga quality", but if they have nominated the article, they obviously feel that it is. It's then up to the reviewer to explain the issues. If the problems are too numerous to list, then perhaps a general outline explaining the issues and how they may be fixed, rather than a line-by-line analysis, but that would only be for the weakest nominations. On that note, am going to delete these pages to allow a more capable reviewer to take over. J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've left the sugar article, as another reviewer has taken it on. That said, with comments like "Remove all redlinks, either by de-linking them or creating stub articles for them" it's perhaps still not getting the kind of attention it warrants... J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder to clean out the "onreview" status and the review page transclusions on the article talk pages when the review pages are deleted. Otherwise, a ghost review appears on the GAN page and these show up as malformed reviews on the daily report. I've just done so for these four. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following addition, or something like it, to the GAN talk page (i.e. this page) FAQ. I've noticed a couple cases where people have raised concerns with others' reviews and not notified the person whose reviews they're criticizing. It's probably a simple matter of forgetfulness, but I thought perhaps we could have the following in the FAQ:

What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process?

You can bring those concerns here for help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in a dispute that you have begun a discussion.

I don't think this should be too controversial. Any thoughts? --Batard0 (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Rschen7754 06:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine. Malleus Fatuorum 14:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine to me. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"Here" needs to be a specific page name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I'll put it in with a link to "here". Edit or revert and discuss if any concerns do arise. --Batard0 (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

there is an odd error: Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA2‎ and last section of Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky are not the same pages, meaning that the subpage is not correctly transcluded. Could someone fix this please? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can work out, Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA1 has been transcluded into Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA2 has been added (not transcluded) to Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA1. I can't work out what is what, but the solution is to remove Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA2 from Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA1 and transclude {{Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA2}} into Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky, where it aught to be, but it might need some cleaning up afterwards. Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. If I did something wrong please correct. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• I transcluded the review[9] but the reviewer reverted me.[10] for some reason. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a dispute over the use of non-free images in my review of Ibuki (Street Fighter). I could just ask for a 3rd opinion on this GAN, but the same nominator has several other waiting GANs with which I have similar concerns. So it would save time in the future if these could be systemically sorted out in one go. Aside from the one linked above:

• Ayane (Dead or Alive) has a poster and an image from a movie, in addition to the main picture, illustrating similar things.
• Mai Shiranui actually has a GIF of the character, illustrating "Mai's famous breasts bounce effect". There are 2 other images in the article, all showing the same costume and so forth. Aside from the GIF not really showing anything new (it's clear from the main picture what this character is about, without the need for motion), as her "sex appeal" is the character's main selling point, I'm tempted to run wild and say the GIF in all its glory impinges the holder's commercial rights.
• Ada Wong only has two images, but illustrating very similar things (same costume again).

There may be more of these concerns (separate images of the same character taken from all of the game, movie and comic; but hopefully no more GIFs) in some of the user's dozen or so character GANs. They look pretty decent otherwise, so I'm willing to review more if I can just get some consensus one way or another on this issue. bridies (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Prince of Persia (1989 video game) has a huge GIF for years now and no one complained on "commercial rights". Morever, I'd say stuff being on Wikipedia is a actually rather a form of free advertisement, when it's not negative that is (the card, in a bigger picture, was shared by Bandai in their advertising blog). If anything, the companies can be just asked about their opinions. (Given that such images are routinely used by countless various other websites, and magazines, I don't think they would suddenly disagree to having a free ad here because of their "commercial rights".) --Niemti (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Also Ada's costume in RE2 was actually different ("(same costume again)"). This is the full image:[11] (a badly damaged miniskirt dress with dark tights + bandages). --Niemti (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether you think the companies would mind having the images here is irrelevant. While the images are non-free, they must meet the non-free content criteria; importantly, more images are not used if fewer would suffice, and images are not used unless they add significantly to reader understanding. It's quite clear that, for some of these articles, that is not the case. J Milburn (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What if I contact them, would it be "relevant"? And no, SNK never sold, or plans to sell, GIF images. If Bandai planned to sell JPG pictures of this card, they would not publish it (in high-res, which they continue to do, for example this was just released) for everyone to see and save for free (they sell actual cards). And images in Ayane's article were also all released precisely for promotional purposes. Also I hardly plaster these images all over these articles anyway, I'm using only between 1-4 (yes, sometimes just 1, like in Leon S. Kennedy), and I'm using free ones (from Commons) whenever I can (like in Claire Redfield). --Niemti (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What if I contact them, would it be "relevant"? No, not really. There are two kinds of images; free images, and non-free images. If the images are free, do what you want with them. If they're non-free, they have to meet the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And getting back to the Ibuki comic cover and concerns regarding sharing it here, too: this picture, along with dozens of others, was even posted on Omar Dogan's (the UDON artist who drew this series) deviantART account. And in many other websites (absolutely legally). And speaking of which, something like that would be actually better. I just PM-ed Omar, asking about it. --Niemti (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

NFC is not a means of legal defense, though it is structured to hit the main points that come up in the evaluation of US Fair Use law as to, at minimum, assert our images fall within it. But instead, NFC is stricter, to maintain WP's goal of being a free content encyclopedia. We use non-frees only when they are essential for the reader's understanding, and avoid duplication. One nonfree image of a copyrighted character is usually not a problem in articles about that character to show what that character looks like, but subsequent ones need to demonstrate significant content to be of appropriate use. Typically these end up being facets like original art and concept sketches, or an alternate version of the character in another medium, but they aren't always necessary. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I also think just one non-free image of the character per article is the standard. I could maybe see including an image of an actor as the character (e.g. Ayane (Dead or Alive)), but otherwise, I'd say the extra movie posters and card images, and similar, should go. The crucial point is that they don't add anything to the reader's understanding, since we already know what the character looks like. As for the Prince of Persia gameplay image, I think we've generally agreed that one gameplay picture per video game article is okay. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Niemti is referring to the fact that it is an animated (And therefore large) gif. Except here, the game's article specifically calls out to the animation being done via a rotoscoping technique and part of the game's reputation, and even moreso than just a screenshot, serves that purpose as well. It's an example that doesn't apply well to here, though - apples and oranges. --MASEM (t) 14:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Prince of Persia (1989 video game) is a start class article; someone might well complain about it if it were brought to GAN or FAC. But again the point has been missed. The Prince of Persia GIF illustrates at a minimum something that isn't illustrated in the cover art, and arguably something that's difficult to describe in words or even illustrate in a still image. The GIF of whatsherface doesn't show anything not in the main image (same character, same costume) and I would assert that the layman will be familiar enough with the effects of motion and gravity on an ample chest, and that an animation is not necessary. bridies (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It shows something that "whatsherface" is best know of, which was discussed back then and even remains discussed today nearly 20 years later. It introduced the breasts movement effect to fighting games (something that later became pretty much a defining part of the DOA series), and her boobs move all the time even in the neutral stance when the player does nothing at all (unless in the censored versions, because this was controversial in some places - apparently people in the UK were not allowed to get familiar "with the effects of motion and gravity on an ample chest"). A still image can't properly show this. --Niemti (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There are no "extra movie posters" there (or any movie posters). I e-mail the companies asking if the use of their images that they released for promotional purposes "impinges their commercial rights" in any way. --Niemti (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

To us, at WP, that doesn't matter at all. The only thing that can change the status of the images is if the company releases them with a license that is compatible with our free ones. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So, "we" are so concerned about the possibility it "impinges the holder's commercial rights" that the actual opinions of holders "doesn't matter at all"? Wow. --Niemti (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Mind you, it's a feel-good jester if we can get them to say that while it's still their copyright, its use on WP is okay (such as with File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg) but that doesn't change how they fit in per NFC policy. The license has to be free for that to be different. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between a promotional scan of a card, when they are selling actual cards, and the photo that is an intellectual property all in itself. All you can with a photo is to see it, but you can't actually play a GIF taken from a video game. "Apples and orange", you know. --Niemti (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell looking at the Ibuki article and Ayane article, each image has an independent fair-use basis for inclusion and the objection that "the character is wearing the same costume" is totally missing the point of their inclusion as well as ignoring basic aesthetics. Using just two or three images in the article would certainly seem to satisfy minimal use. It is not like there is a good chance of finding freely-licensed images depicting the characters, so I don't really see how the articles fail to comply with the NFCC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This and I actually take adhering to the non-free user rationales seriously. The comic book images have it very liberal, and so I used them in 2 of these articles above, but regular books have it extremly limited, so I never used any for characters or other works. Two examples from my current GA nominations: Taki (Soulcalibur) (where I'd like to use the cover of her Queen's Gate series gamebook, because it's quite empty) and Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth (which would use of the novella The Shadow Over Innsmouth, which it is based on) - but in both cases I couldn't do it, because the rationale for books says that the covers can be only used at the top of the articles and the articles should be about the books themselves. I also try to find promotional images, too, if it's only possible. An alternative for Ada would be her in the film (which was just released), and Ibuki's comic cover would be better replaced by this 2-page panel from Omar's dA (showing the duality of the character). --Niemti (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

NFC does not consider anything with aesthetics and images. Secondly, the same restriction on book covers applies to comic book covers (why would it not apple?). NFC use is supposed to be exceptional, and while we recognize the need to demonstrate what a character looks like and allow one use, all subsequent uses much involve critical commentary and discussion about the character image. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong, and there's nothing theoretical about "why would it not apple". I actually studied the rationales, you know, so I know:

You can find the 10 differences. Oh, and "at the top of the article" thing was actually about the copyrighted logos (not books). --Niemti (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And about Ayane's film screenshot (official promotional release):

The "critical commentary and discussion about the character" is actually needed, and so it's in the caption, and in more detail in the sections "In film" and "Reception". --Niemti (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

These are licenses, not non-free rationales. But even still, the comic book one talks about the character cover use for the issue in question. A character article is not that. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, licenses. How is "the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question" not about Ibuki in Ibuki #1? They can even illustrate "the scene or storyline depicted" - do you think there are Wikipedia articles about SCENES in comic books? Or "the copyrighted character(s) or group(s) depicted on the excerpted panel in question" - are there any articles about single panels? Of course not. Get real. --Niemti (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Certain scenes or panels in comics may be the subject of sourced commentary - not necessarily their own article, but within context; that's satisfying NFCC#8. But focus on here: you have a character - primary from video games, but that happens to have a otherwise non-notable comic series. The look of the character from the video game publication to the comic is not much different. Since this article is not about the comic but about the character, the use of the cover needs to be the subject of sourced commentary, and not just used to illustrate "here's what her comic looks like". See WP:NFC#UUI #9. The comic book license would apply appropriate if the comic dedicated to that character was the subject of the article, but that's not the case here. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And that's why I said, 2 times already (this is the third): that panel (already shared on dA) would make a better illustration as to show something though an illustration (something more than her genki pesonality). And I never said any "here's what her comic looks like", read again what I actually wrote. The license says nothing about "the comic dedicated to that character was the subject of the article" neither, you're just imagining things. And "WP:NFC#UUI #9" pointed nowhere (besides a redirect). You don't even check your won links. --Niemti (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Ibuki Legends.jpg has no appropriate rationale that explains how it meets NFCC#8 and NFCC#3a. "Use in a section" is nowhere close to a proper statement of rationale. How does this image help the user to comprehend the article, and how does its omission harm the comprehension of the article? WP:NFC#UUI #9 is the link I meant to write. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, it may be appropriate if placed inline next to the commentary. Similarly, a photo of a copyrighted statue (assuming there is no freedom of panorama in the country where the statue is) can only be used to discuss the statue itself, not the subject of it." Okay, aaaaand... whatever it had to do with anything? --Niemti (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That's the license, not the rationale. As per the text of all of those licenses you posted, a non-free rationale is still required. That's why it's important to recognize the distinction here, just because the license says it may be okay, you still need to write a rationale for its use. While the image does have a rationale template and most of the fields filled in correctly, you need a statement specifically addressing NFCC#8. The fact that there's little discussion about visual aspects of the cover in the article presently, likely means that you probably won't be able to meet NFCC#8 (we don't just use cover art decoratively). --MASEM (t) 19:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

But really, what this stuff about magazine photographs of persons or photographs of statues had to do with ANYTHING? I didn't get it. At all. --Niemti (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello? --Niemti (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll also say again about how I used a film screenshot for Claire Redfield (which is also a GA nomination), but then replaced it when I found a free alternative, which was the actress photo from a promo event that I found in Wikipedia Commons while checking for what they have about Resident Evil (not much, mostly logos). I really do it right.

Also, I just emailed: Bandai, UDON, SNK Playmore and Tecmo Koei, let's see how much they care (and in the meantime you can wonder how the Wikia gets away with even scores of pictures per character, all kinds of them and often high-resultion, while nobody cares about having a free advertisement). --Niemti (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're in a dialog with the relevant creative authors, you should ask if they are willing to formally release limited numbers of images under free licenses that would enable the placement of those images on Commons (emphasize the publicity value of doing so). This would probably need to be formalized via OTRS for the relevant images, and would bypass the need for fair use criteria. Magic♪piano 18:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This would be highly unlikely, because that would mean them stripping themselves of at least some of copyrights they have. Making something "free" is an entirely different matter than just having them shared in a website, or in a magazine (be it in actual ad paid by them, or in an article by the publishers, in any case they're still the copyrights holders). --Niemti (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And yet, we do have some companies that release stills and other works to free licenses. It's not an outside chance to try, though we don't expect them to do that, as you say. But that's the only thing that can change an image from non-free to free. Anything else less than that that a company can provide doesn't move the image from being covered under NFC. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? Like, for example, what it would be? Anyway, I did point them out to this discussion, so they can do it if they want. But I never planned to "change an image from non-free to free." I'm just using the licenses (of which this for comic covers and panels is by far most liberal), that's all. I didn't create these licenses, you know. I don't uploaded massive numbers of these images, neither. Usually it's 1 or 2 (including these already existing). I also look for free pictures if there are any available, I actively search for promotionally-released images to use, I'm lowering theeir resolution and sometimes cropping them, all the other stuff I should do I do (and what so many other people do not). --Niemti (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Several indie video game developers have allowed us use of their game images as free - they still control the copyright on the overall work and the characters, but the stills are put into free for illustration (See, for example Awesomenauts). I know the chance of a large scale company willing to do that is low, which is why we don't require that type of check, but if you happen to have anything more than just a fan relationship with them, then there's a possibly of getting some free images to use. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my previous post and how I roll: Like, with Yuffie Kisaragi (a GA already) I wanted to post a film screenshot, as she looks entirely different (and yes, there's a critical commentary about it in the article), but I couldn't find anything good enough enough online - and I have this principle that every file should be sourced to a website (I see so many pictures where they just write something to the effect of "promotional image" as a source while posting HUGE hi-res images, like this one today, and they get away with it - I know because I was asking for such images to be deleted, but to no avail). I really know what I'm doing and I do it right. --Niemti (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

NFC sourcing does not require being sourced to a website, only enough information that we can validate the original publication. A user-taken screenshot of a film is completely fine as long as its explained in the source where it can be re-validated. (eg "A shot from around 30 min into the film"). Large size images can be tagged {{non-free reduce}} to mark them for reduction. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I would say cover art for a work discussed in the article easily satisfies NFCC#8. I did notice that an RfC was initiated on the matter at the NFCC talk page where discussion was generally favorable towards allowing cover art in any articles where the work is discussed, but was used to make a change saying it was only allowed on articles about the work. Upon noticing that I restored the previous wording of NFCC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that added footnote was from a recent discussion. Note: the list in WP:NFCI is not exclusive meaning that what is listed is not the only acceptable use of cover art, just that the only clear allowance for cover art is on articles about the work the cover represents. Any other use requires demonstration of all NFCC points. Ergo, just because a work is mentioned in an article (that is otherwise not about the work) does not give us allowance to use its cover, though if there is critical commentary about the cover, then there cause. --MASEM (t) 21:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Masem is correct- This is the way it has been for many years. Devil's Advocate, merely discussing a work does not magically mean that the cover art of that work is suddenly significant. Equally, merely discussing a person does not mean we need a non-free image of their face or discussing a company does not mean that we need a non-free logo of the company. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I get that neither of you really like any non-free cover art being included without the art itself being the subject of critical commentary and only begrudgingly accepted it for articles on the works themselves, but consensus and the wording of the NFCC does not seem to support that position even in these cases. You are appealing to a consensus view that does not appear to exist.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking to me there, but I have no idea why you believe that I "only begrudgingly accepted it for articles on the works themselves". You're putting words into my mouth, which is not fair. Again, there is a strong consensus in favour of the NFCC, including NFCC#8, and common sense dictates that discussing a work (say, an album) in a related article (say, about a singer) does not automatically mean that the related article is going to be significantly worse-off without the cover of the work. That's what NFCC#8 requires. This isn't as complicated as you're trying to make it. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

We're not discussing persons nor companies. ("Apples and oranges", pineapples or hand grenades.) Anyway, would it be cool-er for you two to use this spead showing the dichotomy of the character? --Niemti (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-free images are supposed to be exceptional. That's the requirement by the Foundation, and is not up to consensus. And you need to get your head out of trying to read between the lines and wikilawyer it - it is the principles behind NFC that are being pointed out. Okay, so you're talking about a video game character and we're making references to people and companies. The same logic must apply to both, and as noted, the lists on WP:NFC are not fully exclusive, and ergo we have to consider how the logic behind them extends to other types of works. So if we don't allow covers of magazines to be used to just illustrate articles on the people themselves, the same applies to fictional characters, unless there is something exceptional about that cover that has critical commentary in the article. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that was really an answer to my question. Anyway - persons (especially living ones) are actually "exceptional" on Wikipedia, with their own set on rules. And the photographs are complete works - unlike parts of comics, which is more like like citing a part of a book (poem, song, article, any written form). A single image is very unlike posting a whole comic (not to mention comic series), or the photo (because a single reproduction of the photo is the entirity of this photo). But that wasn't even what I asked for. --Niemti (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, the rules for living persons fit within our overall scheme in the same way; the only reason they are highlighted that if a person is living, it is nearly always possible to get a free image of them, highlighting how NFCC#1, no free replacement, works. And as to your question, you're asking about a spread but I don't see any image link to judge this. But that said, giving the text in the article presently, I would warn there's almost no way a non-free image can be used to show the comic in any form, as the text is perfectly understood without the use of the image, failing NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 22:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I posted the link earlier in the discussion, it's the fourth one. You even answered this post. --Niemti (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Assuming it's this one, no, that won't work because you've already illustrated the dichotomy between her school life and ninja life by the infobox image and the sketch one; this would duplicate that. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And if I, say, posted the one with the Gekis (for example), and then moved stuff about how for years it was commonly assumed that SF1 character "Geki" was her father, until the comics addressed this issue by basically creating her as a character with actual backstory (which became canonical from that point on), to the caption of it - would it become fine for you? (Or even use the current image but with this caption.) --Niemti (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that the character was primarily a video game character to start, using the comic image as the infobox image is somewhat misdirecting, though arguably it could work there. But as a second separate image to show the comic, that's not really a strong reason. You've just explained the fact to us right here - that they fitted her into another character's backstory for the comic. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I just did what? Geki had no backstory before the comic. It was just a character named "Geki" to beat in the original game in 1987, but for some reason there were widespred rumors that it's Ibuki's father after she was introduced in 1997. Alright, check the article now. --Niemti (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Missed much of this, but no: the comic image does not satisfy NFCC 8. In an article about the comic, yeah, but here the character is already illustrated in the exact same manner (the aesthetics, if they matter, are the same) in the previous image. All this illustrates is that she appeared on the cover of the comic, something the layman would easily understand if stated to him in words: the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and its omission is not detrimental to that understanding. And this further violates point 3.1: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. The first and third images are not significantly different. Further, I don't understand all this pontificating over the licence tags (that is licence tags, not licences): these things are informative tags that generally describe the free license under which an image is released; in place of this, for non-free images they just provide a boilerplate rationale because uploaders often don't seem able to provide them. All Niemti's been using to defend the images' inclusion is essentially a non-specific FUR. And if one actually looks at Niemti's (or at least, these articles') FURs one will see they're incredibly weak and inadequate. For the comic image in question, the explanation for why it meets criterion 8: "The other media section", that's it. And for an explanation as to why it doesn't violate no. 3? "All fine." bridies (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I think the image from the comic illustrating Ibuki's claimed duality is a pretty strong NFCC argument so if replacing the cover with that would be satisfactory then I can't see why the matter should be held up. Masem's objection to that image is not very good from my perspective as the concept art and game art together only illustrate that a kick-ass ninja also has comfy clothes. It does not illustrate the character's "fantastic duality, juggling her school and ninja lives in the same way a superhero has their secret identity and super self" that is detailed in the comic book.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that new image was added before or after my above comment, but the problem now is that the second image - the one which illustrates she "also has comfy clothes" - is redundant. Inherently, "duality" has only two things to be illustrated, and we don't need three overlapping images to do so. bridies (talk) 10:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I can agree to this. EOT? --Niemti (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The use of the duality image replacing the schoolclothes one is better. However, you dont need to flood the caption with all the stuff that once was in prose; the image just needs to be close to where in the prose you're talking about the duality. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think we know have an amenable solution for the Ibuki article. Further input on the others is welcome, otherwise not imperative. bridies (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if submitting requests is discouraged or not, but I am hoping to have the Woodstock Library article reviewed sooner than later. In one week I will be meeting with Multnomah County Library staff to begin planning a local Wikipedia Loves Libraries event. One of the goals of the edit-athon is to improve MCL-related stubs. The Woodstock Library (branch within MCL system) article would serve as a model for other branch articles. I seek no special treatment, nor expect any corners to be cut. I just think having a reviewed model would be better than an unreviewed model. Any assistance would be much appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the article can be found under the "Art and architecture" section. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I will review it: Talk:Woodstock Library/GA1. maclean (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
• I don't mean to steal Maclean25's thunder, but I think you've still got quite a bit of work to do before showing this article to the library staff as any kind of a model for anything. I've left a few representative notes on the review page. Malleus Fatuorum 05:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Happy to respond to your feedback ASAP. Thank you both for your assistance--I want to be able to present the best possible article. --Another Believer _(Talk) 13:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

For reasons still somewhat unclear to me (but I respect maclean's decision), the first GAN failed. That being said, I believe the concerns addressed by three separate reviewers have been addressed. Therefore, I have renominated the article for Good status. If there is a reviewer willing to look at this article as well as the last review, assistance would be much appreciated. I am still looking to produce a quality article for use for the upcoming editathon in collaboration with MCL. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've recently been trying to do one GA review a day, and it strikes me that if 10 or 15 other reviewers tried to do the same thing the backlog would be gone in a month or so. But perhaps the lure of a backlog drive barnstar is too great

One other thing that strikes me is that many of the older nominations are virtually unreviewable for various reasons, which is why they're among the older nominations. My suggestion is that we become more aggressive in quickfailing such articles, while offering a few suggestions on how to fix the obvious problems such as the relative length of a plot summary in a book or video game article for instance. FAC has the idea that articles nominated there ought to already meet the FA criteria, and I see no reason why GAN should be different. Another problem the backlog presents is that nominators are not infrequently failing to engage with the review, either because they've left, they've lost interest, or they're too busy with other stuff; I've recently twice had to fix an article myself rather than fail it, which really isn't ideal.

My fundamental point is that by nominating an article at GAN, nominators are asking "does this article meet the GA criteria?" It should be easier than it is to say "no, it doesn't, and here's why". Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it is about interactions and the worry that a fail will induce a negative one, so maybe one more about etiquette than criteria per se? Alternatively there is the seven day time period and you can leave some notes and if there is no response over that time just fail it. I agree about being more proactive with older ones - something I should definitely do as well........actually just having a look at the quickfail criteria I see your point. Is it worthwhile adding a criterion along the lines of - "article is grossly misbalanced contentwise - significant topic areas are either missing or overdetailed." - and/or prosewise "prose requires major rework to be sufficiently smooth enough for GA status" Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd definitely support something along those lines. As I said, there are very good reasons why some nominations languish for months. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I stopped reviewing articles because I was told having a userbox with the number of "GA reviews" I'd done on my user page was wrong by an editor who said he had done more than 500. Kinda blew the wind out of my sails. So I stopped. I've left three four open. Should just close them as failed? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Depends on why they're still on hold. Malleus Fatuorum 00:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

because I'm not doing GA reviews any more. Can't make myself do them. Became unpleasant for me after your comments to me on another page, pointing out that you were so much more experienced and that I was presumptuous putting the that I had done 189 in a userbox in my page. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I do wonder what you consider "inexperienced" reviewers. I guess I'm in that category even though several I've done have gone on to become FAs. All in the eyes of the beholder I guess. I've been, apparently, determined as incompetent my Malleus, so it be. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Malleus's suggestion is a sensible one. It seems that, too frequently, old nominations are picked up by inexperienced reviewers, when, in fact, they have (sometimes, by no means always) been left alone because they are problematic, and reviewing problematic articles is not as rewarding as reviewing strong ones. I also support Casliber's addition to the quickfail criteria, but I can imagine that some would object because of the element of subjectivity. J Milburn (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

well, that's not an answer to my question. (None of my reviews are "old nominations ... Picked up by inexperienced reviewer", but I get the message.) Since this has been weighing on me quite a while (what I should do since it has been pointed out that my reviewing is numerically up to par with Malleus and thus he can ridicule me), I'll take the ignoring of my question to mean that I can do as I like then regarding the four open ones. Since I have been determined by Malleus as "inexperienced" although several of my article reviews have gone on to become FAs, I'll bow to Malleus' evaluation and not review more. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you should care what someone else thinks about your experience, since you must know you're a more-than-competent reviewer, but if you want to wind up the reviews and haven't done anything with them yet there are two better ways than just failing them. One is to find someone (or someones) to take over the reviews, and another is to just up the page numbers in the GA nomination templates by one and remove "onreview" (or "onhold") from the status field. That ends your review and leaves the noms on the GAN page waiting for a new reviewer to arrive. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Gotta agree with that. MT, you know your review are good, as do I. If someone whining about a damn userbox is what keeps you from reviewing, then shake it off. We're short on reviewers as it is and that combined with my lack of activity here have definitely stalled things. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

MT is not telling the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 03:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

ok, I really stopped because Malleus Fatuorum accused me of intentionally vandalizing his post (no AGF for me) when I was just trying to copy the link to his article in his post for my reply and screwed it up. He characterized my unintentional remove of his Tickle Cock Bridge article in his post as "Puritanical replacement",[12] a slur because he seems to dislike almost all Americans. (Americans are stereotyped as Randy in Boise on wikipedia.) Malleus Fatuorum said to me "if you took the trouble to look you'd see that I've done more than 500 GA reviews".[13] He checked out my co-FA and decided I've contributed "almost nothing to it" and "you've never written anything worth spit".[14] I don't want to risk such an attack by him again by continuing to review GAs. It'll be only a matter of time before he finds a stupid mistake I make and specifically starts in on my work here. It's not worth the chance of being ridiculed, though I enjoyed the reviewing immensely and always tried to do the right thing. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Does it really matter which person is "right" over something so trivial? As long as reviews are getting done and things are progressing little things like boxes or whatever are irrelevant. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on whether or not you believe the truth to be important, as opposed to the twisted and contorted versions of the truth put forward by your friends. Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to spot here, but as BlueMoonset and Wizardman said, Mathew is an incredible reviewer and an experienced one. I support Mathew in everything he does and I consider that Malleus attitude is not the irhgt one. Additionally, Mathew, you don't have to take care of what one person thinks of your work if the rest of us know you are good. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That you, Hah21. But Malleus_Fatuorum is right; I unintentionally didn't tell the truth. It was Nikkimaria who mentioned I had on my userpage "my dyk", "my barnstars", "articles I started". All Malleus_Fatuorum said was "Basically it's OK for him to list "his" articles on his user page, but not for anyone else to list "their" articles anywhere." So I have now removed all "my"s from my user page. Malleus_Fatuorum checked out my co-FA and decided I've contributed "almost nothing to it" and "you've never written anything worth spit", and about a two sentence article I wrote:

"To choose just one of MatthewTownsend's articles at random, Peter Askin had only 165 views last month; even Gropecunt Lane managed to put that in the shade with more than 10,000 views[15], as did Tickle Cock Bridge a mere GA that still had almost ten times the page views of Peter Askin.[16]" Your saying about my attempt to copy the link to your article: "I was objecting to was your Puritanical replacement with "::::::::"."

(so much for AGF), and Malleus_Fatuorum continued: "I've done more than 500 GA reviews, so I've likely got a better idea of what I'm talking about than you have." When someone asked a question, you answered with "That's a question you ought to be addressing to MathewTownsend, whose hypocritical and insulting comments started this mess." etc.
If my other attempts to contribute to wikipedia are ridiculed and I'm valued only for my reviews while my attempts to learn to write articles is ridiculed, then my enjoyment of reviewing is lessened immesurably. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"That's a question you ought to be addressing to MathewTownsend, whose hypocritical and insulting comments started this mess." This statement is accurate; some of the others you've included in this conversation and others have been less so, so please be careful about that. Nevertheless, it's probably best to focus on the actual point of this talk page now. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think quickfails and queue length are inextricably related problems. Since the queue length is so great most of the time, I have pre-nominated articles based on my projected availability and the length of the queue, only to have someone come along in a backlog drive, review it immediately and fail it. Oookay. And then, they yell at me for renominating it immediately to put it back in the queue. Sigh. People gripe about the queue length, and then gripe about when experienced editors rely on the queue length. If there were consistently no queue, then there would be no incentive for editors to stack up articles to try and get a place in line. As is, it's also a huge insult to an editor to have a GAN in queue for two or three months, and then be reviewed and failed for something fixable... while it's certainly the prerogative of the reviewer, it's non-collaborative. And, for the record, I see no reason why editors shouldn't proudly display the number of GA's they've reviewed--I do, and have for years, even though the number has been quite stable for a while. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither do I see a problem with that, but I do see a problem with lying, as MathewTownsend has done above. I've had a count of the reviews I've done on my user page for as long as I can remember. Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your cause and effect, Malleus. I've nominated four articles recently, and so did four reviews - three of which were the oldest entries in the sports and recreation queue, two of them nearly three months old. All of them passed relatively easily, one without even placing on hold. What I have noticed is that since the sports and rec queue was broken out of everyday life - and therefore moved from the top of the page to the bottom - that queue's backlog has nearly doubled from 35ish to 70ish. and I would say the entire reason is the lack of visibility. As that section went farther down the page, it became less frequented by reviwers who tend to grab from the top. Thus, I think the problem is a combination of lack of reviewers, and lack of visibility. We need to find a way to get these queues visible to the people (wikiprojects) most likely to deal with them. Perhaps, encourage the members of various sports and rec projects to step in and clean up that backlog. Same with film and arts. Try to encourage people to take a greater interest in reviewing.

That being said, I do think montioring new entries for obvious quick fail criteria is not a bad thing. There is probably little more demoralizing for an editor new to this process to wait two months only for a quick fail. If we can catch those right away, we can gently instruct those users on what needs to be fixed for a faster re-list and a better experience. I wonder if we couldn't get a bot programmed to list new entries (akin new article patrol) that checks obvious things - potential copyvios, ratio of sources to article length and the like, that would allow a human reviewer to easily spot such articles and lend advice to the submitters? Resolute 05:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I can think of something more demoralising: to spend hours on a review only to be met with complete silence by the nominator, which often happens with the older nominations. Malleus Fatuorum 05:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that hasn't been my experience. Maybe if you're concerned about that you could check the nominator's recent contribs and/or leave 'em a note on their talk page to make sure they're still interested before taking on the review? Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't try to teach me how to suck eggs. Malleus Fatuorum 05:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

While responding to a helpful suggestion in such a manner certainly doesn't alleviate the problem, it does a rather good job of making me wonder why anyone would ever try and offer aid to you twice, Malleus. Engaging another editor who's trying to brainstorm solutions to your articulated problem in a positive discussion, even if you think their suggestions ineffective, would be a good way to keep the dialogue going. Jclemens (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Haven't I made it very clear elsewhere that I don't have even the slightest interest in anything you have to say? Malleus Fatuorum 17:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean, in a manner that clearly separated itself from your background incivility to the entire planet and made me realize you actually had singled me out for individual poor treatment? Nope, hadn't noticed that, since I've made it a habit to ignore your chronic incivility and attempt to work past it to understand your real concern, and not let such a concern be masked by your consistently poor interactions with other editors. So, it would appear that, by simply not focusing on your rudeness, I've actually missed the personalized message. My apologies. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with that, but like Jclemens, it has not been my experience to see a lack of response from a nominator. For those three very old nominations I mentioned above, the editors all responded to my review within 24 hours. If your experience is different, and it appears it is, then perhaps we need to look for common threads. i.e.: are you reviewing articles from newish editors, or in certain queues? If we find a pattern to abandoned nominations, we can more effectively find solutions. Resolute 15:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Not been my experience either, but rather the opposite. Nominators seem to welcome reviews of their nominations. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I like having this general discussion about addressing the queue, despite that it's a perennial one. In this case, however, I don't think the solution addresses the stated problem. It may help in some marginal way, and I think I'd support it with modifications that I plan to suggest later. The issue is that it's not radical enough. This is just a guess, but I imagine no more than 50 to 100 nominations could be culled from the list based upon the new criterion, and making that cut would likely take weeks if not months as people look through each nomination. Meanwhile, the backlog is more than 400 articles last time I checked. What's needed are bold and practical ideas -- ideas that give people incentives to do reviews even when a review drive isn't happening. Any form of QPQ (even an entirely optional QPQ) is routinely shot down. This is unfortunate, because it structures the system such that people have an incentive to nominate (getting the green button) but not to review (listing number of reviews on one's user page isn't quite as strong an incentive because it's not visible enough). From a practical standpoint, it's imbalanced. Given the history, I think it's a time-waster to re-propose any sort of QPQ. Does anybody have other radical ideas to give people a stronger incentive to review? --Batard0 (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Right folks, back on topic...

Right, getting this back on track. How about something along the lines of (to go under criterion 6):

7.The article contains major gaps in coverage, and/or goes into great and unnecessary detail on a particular aspect of the subject. (Note that in this case the nominator reviewer should be able to clearly specify the issues involved to the nominator)

Support adding this

Oppose adding this

1. Too subjective. Quickfail criteria, like speedy deletion criteria, need to be very black-and-white, such that any two experienced, good-faith editors applying them without reference to each other would come to the same conclusion 95+% of the time. I just don't see this getting there. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• I consider that we really don't need this one. We can always fail the article if it has major gaps in coverage or goes into unnecessary detail, So why would we re-instate this as a quickfail criteria? — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • All of the quickfail criteria restate the standard criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

8 (or 7 if the above doesn't pass) .The article's prose is globally poor and needs a complete going-over by a copyeditor to even get to a stage of fine-tuning to good prose.

Support adding this

Oppose adding this

1. Per the above, too subjective. Also, both this and the above one are not necessarily showstoppers which would preclude the article being improved by an editor within a one-week window to repair any deficiencies noted. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• I do like the idea of this one as I find you really need a good couple of goes to massage prose sometimes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Casliber but I don't like how it is written and won't completely support it until it is rewritten. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am open to ideas, I just threw these up as an option. I'd be happy to look at other wording etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

We can psuedo-quickfail an article under these conditions already by simply failing it without placing it on hold. I am inclined to support both proposals still as it will make it easier and hopefully encourage more reviewers to take this option than to try and push through hopeless cases. Anything that makes reviewing easier is a good thing. Also all the current quickfail criteria are just extreme cases of the normal criteria, so it makes sense to include extreme examples of 1a (prose) and 3 (broadness). AIRcorn (talk) 10:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Stanisław Poniatowski (1676–1762)/GA1. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Review deleted, talk page reset to remove the "status=onreview" and review transclusion. I think that's all that's required to get the GA bot to reset the nominations page, but no doubt someone will tell me what I've forgotten... Bencherlite^Talk 16:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks good at GAN and AA lists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Talk:Break It Off/GA1? This is the second time I've attempted a GA review and I want to make sure I didn't do a bad job. Maybe I need a second opinion from someone with more experience at reviewing. — Oz (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A discussion that may affect this project that should have been advertised here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And another one. Wikipedia talk:Did you know#One GA per shift? Jimmy's on board for reforming DYK AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The amount of articles currently nominated for GA status is awfully high and I want to propose the idea of starting another backlog elimination drive in a month or two. It will help the number of nominations stay low as the number of nom's is almost a 500. Anyone agree?--Dom497 (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of another drive, as the number went way down as a result of the last one. However, there needs to be a better monitoring system this time, to avoid the types of inadequate reviews that took place in the June/July drive. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I could help with that. School might get in the way a few times but I should be able to take a look at reviews (I could of if I wanted to in the June/July drive but I didn't feel like it :P ) I will include a section in the October 2012 newsletter about weather users will want another drive.--Dom497 (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was planning, along with Wizardman, to make the next drive in November or December, at the end of the period of classes and vacations. Although any recommendations and comments are very welcome. I am developing a lightweight and very productive system to enhance the monitoring system and get better results. We should also take this post at WT:GAN to see more feedback about it. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Side note: No one has given out the awards for the last drive. —Ed!^(talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A bunch have already been given out. People are busy so its hard to get them to everyone all at once.--Dom497 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, half of the participants have their awards, as you can check on the totals page. I was very very busy and was unable to give them. I will do my best to finish them this week. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Update: All barnstars have been given. The #1 barnstar won't be given out. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support for a November/December 2012 drive, most users will be in vacation for the holidays, thus reviewers should be at a high rise during these times. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 23:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• I really don't know how things work internationally, but a December/January drive would work best for me to contribute. I don't think I would be able to during October or November. Zac  23:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I have never been a strong supporter of these, but always thought them generally harmless. That was until the last one. Some reviewers were conducting poor reviews and due to the drive they were being produced en mass. I would rather have a long queue and good reviews than a short queue with superficial reviews. Besides backlog drives accomplish very little in the scheme of things, a month later and we are back where we started. AIRcorn (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

So, several previous drives went off with minimal issues, but because one had some problems, you'd rather just scrap the entire idea? Resolute 00:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"Some problems" is an understatement. We had a lot of drive-by reviews, where it wasn't clear that the reviewer read the article. When a drive causes more harm than it benefits the site, that's a huge issue. --Rschen7754 00:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There were several articles that were short but contained all the info possible which only took a few minutes to read and approve everything. Not all articles have to take a few hours/days to review you know.--Dom497 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As one who monitors road GANs (and many road articles are short), I still question whether some reviews of those articles were done properly. --Rschen7754 00:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Just curious, use this article as an example. I don't find anything wrong with the article. The refs are probably the only type you will find and the amount of info is a much as could be included.--Dom497 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I found some prose issues; repeated sentence beginnings, and an agreement issue. --Rschen7754 00:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Something I have learned at FAC: We all have different standards of what a good article (in this case) may be. Some may pass an article while others may cite prose issues on that very same article. What i believe must be the minimun level is the GA criteria; beyond that the reviewers can play with his/her personal taste and knowledge (at a limit, of course). — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Basically what Rschen says. In my opinion the drive provides very limited benefit (actually I am not sure it provides any real benefit) and a few issues. After the last one I think the issues now outweigh the benefits and I have gone from being meh about these to actually opposing them. AIRcorn (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that the issues outweigh the benefits of the drives as they were conducted in the past, how can we change the way the drives are done so that 1) they reduce the backlog, something they have been successful at doing in the past, but 2) maintain high quality of reviews, which clearly didn't happen in the previous drive? Surely there are ways to amend incentive structures to keep quality up. The question is merely what those incentives should be, in my view. --Batard0 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral If accepted. I'd gladly work as a coordinator with Wizardman again. Although, as i have moved to FAC and FLC now, i won't act as a reviewer like I did on the last one. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support unless a more practical alternative can be devised. There are flaws with the drives, but they're a necessary evil until we can find a way to sustainably keep the backlog in check. QPQ proposals (even optional ones) are routinely shot down, and it's unclear what other incentives we could create for people to review as much as they nominate - or just review in general. Some may be content to let the backlog build up indefinitely, but there's little point in having a GA process if it's so inefficient that some nominators wait three to four months to have their articles reviewed; if we let it run its natural course, some people will soon be waiting years. --Batard0 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm usually all for coordinating drives, but if one were do be done, the process would have to be overhauled, given how horribly the last one went. The backlog wasn't actually tapped into (people just reviewed six hour old episode articles), and we ended up with more problems than benefits. If I were to coordinate another one, I'd do a completely different format this time, try and take out superficial incentives to avoid poor reviews. Wizardman 13:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What about a requirement that participating reviewers 1) pick articles from the top five unreviewed of any section and 2) awards are given based on the text size of the article plus the text size of the review (easy to calculate using the js plugin, must be calculated by the reviewer him/herself in Kb), thus rewarding amount of work done over number of reviews completed? This would encourage people to do more in-depth reviews instead of cursory reviews of low-hanging fruit. --Batard0 (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unless substantial changes are made. "Programs that actively damage this project must be discontinued." --Rschen7754 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I will try to wokr out a new system and post here for feedback at a later time.--Dom497 (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's a few things I have in mind: Either discontinue barnstars or have them based on quality of review or something similar instead. We can still have a system where everyone posts their reviews but perhaps with them being used for something else instead of the raw numbers. We could also say that only articles at GAN before the drive began can count so that people aren't tackling 8 hour old ones. Just a few things I'm tossing out. Wizardman 19:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You might even want to go further and say that articles must be at least 30 days old when their review starts in order to be eligible for credit, though there might be half credit for articles 15 to 29 days old when their review starts. The fancier barnstars could indeed go for high-quality reviews, with more basic ones to simple yet competent reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. We can change the meaning of the barnstars and give them out as a discretionary reward for quality instead of quantity. Additionally, i think we should stay with the actual format of adding the reviews (which i designed). Also, i completely agree with only letting nominations posted before the drive to be eligible for credits, or, on a more quality-driven idea, been eligible for quality check. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, I will design a fancy new template to easily add all reviews to the page :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Was thinking something along those lines too. My idea was to create a list of articles that have been queued for over 4-8 weeks (depending on how big we want the list to be). Participants cross off or mark reviews they are doing (maybe GA bot could do this automatically). The drive continues until all the listed articles are reviewed. I would guess that the older nominations will be less attractive to editors looking for a quick or easy review (usually why they are older). If they want co-ordinators can split and pre-watchlist the future reviews between them, that way if a poor review occurs it can hopefully be dealt with at the time instead of after-the-fact. This will focus the drive on clearing out the older nominations, which should really be its main aim. AIRcorn (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you AIRcorn. Completely. FWIW, i have this page: User:Hahc21/Fall_2012_GAN_Review_Round where all ideas can also be discussed and added. I have designed a new template to facilitate the addition of reviews with no issues with formatting. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So I was thinking, what would happen if a review is found to be poorly? Yes, it wouldn't count towards a "point" in the rankings but is that it? Would it be worth sending it for reassessment?--Dom497 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's another idea just to throw it out there: we could structure the incentives in the drive like a fundraiser, giving the same award to all participants if the drive reaches pre-defined targets. I.e. if the backlog gets reduced to X articles, everybody gets barnstar Y. If the oldest unreviewed article is also reduced to two months, everybody gets barnstar Z, etc. --Batard0 (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose to that idea. From what your wrote, your idea is to going back to quantity not quality which is not what we want to do. Chances are that something like this will lead to an exact repeat of the last drive.--Dom497 (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support the format as was. However, if anything then we need to introduce a more fair-minded version: someone who will do several low-quality reviews will be disqualified from the process. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As an alternative, instead of a drive as was formerly held, collect the projects more dedicated reviewers (I wouldn't call myself one, but would try to help) and do a mini push to clear away the oldest nominations in the queue. Though some method of incentivizing new reviewers would be a benefit. Perhaps instead of promising barnstars for doing reviews, the barnstars would go only to those who do quality reviews? Resolute 14:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Why aren't those signing up to this drive not simply doing more reviews now? Why try to make it into a competition? Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the drives because they are a group effort --I love seeing hundreds of articles get done and everyone getting involved. It's like a festival; it makes it more fun, less monotonous and gives extra incentive to work. --Tea with toast (話) 00:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I would prefer a December/January because I'll have more time during school break. --Tea with toast (話) 00:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support as long as the reviews aren't dodgy like last time. Till 00:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping to get some clarification regarding delisting articles. Should all articles go through the reassessment process or can an editor instantly delist an article that they feel no longer meets the requirements. I personally think that all articles should go through at least an indiviual reassessment because our main aim is to keep GA status, if someone has taken the time to attempt to get an article to this stage then we should give them at least a chance to save it and it provides a record of what needs fixing in case someone else comes along and wants to get it back up to standard. AIRcorn (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

This question is promted by a disagreement at Talk:Stargate (production team) where I reverted a delisting as no reassessment had been done. AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

An individual reassessment is basically another GAN. The reviewer is required to give a full review, but can hold it or fail it. --Rschen7754 07:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Is a full review necessary or can an editor just bring up the criteria that the article fails. AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it depends. If it's really bad and obvious, there's no point in doing a full review, but you must provide some sort of rationale on a /GA2 page. Specifically, [17] is bad for the above reason; why was the article demoted? --Rschen7754 08:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've looked at the WP:GAR page, and you are supposed to give the nominator/other people a chance to fix the article before it gets demoted. This was entirely out of process. --Rschen7754 08:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Then explain to me why the article history template states "If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment". Perhaps you should try assuming good faith first before providing unnecessary commentary. Till 08:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:GAR takes precedence over what any template says. The template isn't maintained by the GA project. --Rschen7754 08:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because this place is not perfect. If consensus is established here I will put in a request to change that template. AIRcorn (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Then the template should obviously be fixed to avoid confusion between the two. It isn't my fault that it states you can delist it. Till 08:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Template wording updated. AIRcorn (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The idea of delisting articles immediately is because anyone can nominate and anyone can review, so it is possible that an article in very bad shape is approved by someone who misunderstood the criteria (a problem that is much less likely in FACs or class A reviews, which require many users). The immediate delisting should be used to fix those cases when they happen. Cambalachero (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's completely unacceptable to simply delist an article without leaving a review and allowing time for any issues to be fixed. Otherwise it's just anarchy. And where did you get the odd notion from that A-class reviews required "many users"? Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Those I've seen (mostly Milhist) do. I think the TV A-class reviews require many users too. The quality of these individual reviews, however, is a different question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Each project invents its own A-class review; there's no general requirement for anything. Malleus Fatuorum 04:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Do you know any that don't? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  WP:WIAACA says that absent a formal review process by a WikiProject, promotion to A-Class requires that "the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes." Getting back to the original topic, in the case of a promotion to GA clearly in error, an immediate delist is a valid option. I would generally hope that those delisting an article note why they are doing so. Just as we don't require all GAN reviews to placed on hold, even though many are, we should not require all individual GARs to have hold periods either. Imzadi 1979 → 05:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  The issue isn't hold periods but the lack of a review with an explanation for the delisting. Malleus Fatuorum 05:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Agreed. As you said in your edit summary, even quickfails need review comments... just not necessarily in-depth ones. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

At the very least a Talk:Article/GA# page needs to be created saying why the article was delisted. Otherwise the last comment in the article history will be that it passed GA. Unless there is a good reason (copyright violations springs to mind) they should at least be given a chance to fix them. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course that there has to be a review anyway, I was pointing that in such obvious cases the system would be "delist and left a review explaining", rather than "make a review and wait for other people to agree, which could take months, and the article stays good in the meantime" Cambalachero (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If you make an individual reassessment and no one responds (presuming you have notified the major contributors) then you can close it after a week with no dramas. AIRcorn (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• The template actually hasn't been fixed, take a look here at an article I just passed as GA; it states the same thing as before: "it can be delisted or reassessed". Till 05:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a different template, should be fixed now. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There are some people who want Good Articles on the main page. As a project, we should probably prepare for this in terms of thinking how it would be implemented and what if any policy changes should be done if this was to happen. Can some one possibly provide a table which shows the criteria for FA/ITN/DYK to appear on the main page and then criteria here could be developed based on existing projects to determine how it could be implemented here? --LauraHale (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Initial thoughts on implementing:

1. GAs that appear would need approval by two reviewers who check the article against all criteria. Repeated failure to check against criteria would result in a loss of reviewing for main page inclusion privileges.
2. Third person not involved with two reviews would have to send the article "up" to the main page.
3. All existing criteria for GA kept.
4. Articles that appeared at DYK, ITN or TFA are ineligible for main page GA appearances.
5. No more than one article per area of GAN if a selection of articles is being included.
6. GA articles that appear should be reviewed within 30 days of the article being nominated.
7. GA articles should appear within 30 days of being elevated.

It would be nice to have some sort of GA portal where we could test out whatever system we designed for a trial period before implementing.--LauraHale (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there currently consensus for the proposal? I haven't really been following it. Going off my TFA experience, you want to make sure that you don't put a whole bunch of articles of the same subject up, one after another. Also, at FA/POTD they do check for appropriateness for the Main Page; some articles are not appropriate because of subject matter. --Rschen7754 09:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

My alternative proposal would be that DYKs ought to meet the GA criteria, not the other way around, although admittedly that would lead to only about one DYK a week. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Just don't flood them and don't rush them. One a day with a decent queue so there is plenty of time to fix any problems. Having a Good article should not be an automatic right to main page representation. If it happens, it seems most likely it will be through the DYK process so it would be good to judge articles on the quality of the hook as well. I would also keep the process in this namespace as much as possible. AIRcorn (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

But the DYK criteria are somewhat at odds with the GA criteria; chalk and cheese really. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping that there would be some separation between the new articles and the Good ones, even if they were both under the DYK format. However, this seems more likely to happen (42 supports to 29 opposes presently) than the alternative of a seperate space on the main page for Good articles. We can't do a hell of a lot about how the new content proponents run their ship, but if we are forced to climb aboard then we can at least keep ourselves afloat by making sure Good article submissions are the best possible. AIRcorn (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can. DYK has some ridiculous rules that may be appropriate to the super-stubs they're accustomed to dealing with but not to proper articles. Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(IMO) in the GAN for the article on Malala Yousafzai. Contrary or confirmatory opinions welcome. Sasata (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That should never have been promoted. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely why people picking up articles minutes, hours, even a day after nominating pisses me off. Clearly work was still being done on it, even after the GA promotion stuff was added. Plus, any time no prose changes are noted I immediately get suspicious. Wizardman 02:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the time between review and nomination. This is clearly an evolving story that can't possibly meet the stability criterion. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say it falls into the category with the TV shows that haven't aired. --Rschen7754 02:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

And so would I. I've delisted it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN#GA ban. --Rschen7754 07:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

a user recently forgot to close the review page of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Can I myself close it? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It will probably be better to notify the reviewer.--Dom497 (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't see any harm in you doing so. It is not as if you are changing the review itself, just updating the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thought it would be easier to just do it myself. AIRcorn (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on improving my skills as a Wikipedian with the aim of becoming a regular GA contributor. I've never gotten an article to GA before, but I would like to start doing so, so I'm starting with a very small article. My questions is, if you're not sure if it's GA ready yet, is there a way to get feedback on what it needs to be ready for GA review? Or is the best way to do that to simply go through the GA process? The nomination instructions seem to suggest the submitter is confident it's GA ready. Corporate 16:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first thing you have to do is to put the article against the criteria and ask you some questions: is it well-written? Does it cover all possible information about the topic? (broadness) Is it written with a neutral point of view? etc. If you need any help, I can give you a hand so that you can become familiar with the GA criteria and the development of good articles. Other experienced users may be willing to help you, too. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I have read the criteria, and checked against it, but I think my primary uncertainties are about "broad coverage." There are gaps in the history I can't cover because of a lack of available sourcing and areas where I'm uncertain what level of detail is appropriate and what should be merged with History versus pulled out into other sections. The article is on the Chartered Institute of Public Relations. Corporate 18:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, alot of editors have their first GA fail. But after a while, it becomes a very easy process. The best way to get experience on the process is just to try it. You'll learn alot just by doing. If you're really having difficulty, ask an editor familiar with the topic for help; most editors are really friendly on here about stuff like that. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, most editors fail their first GA try and learn how the process works (I was lucky and my first one passed). I will check the article and give you a bit of feedback as soon as I can. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A note and correction... GAs don't "cover all possible information about the topic"; they cover the "main aspects". FAs "cover all possible information about the topic", and that level of comprehensiveness is not expected of GAs. Imzadi 1979 → 03:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Keithbob gave me some feedback. Mostly stuff that was relatively easy to fix. Corporate 20:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)