Fort Towson

I have talked to Nehrams2020 and we both think that there should be another backlog elimination drive so I would like other editors' opinions as well. This time the drive will take about a month (the last one was 2 weeks) and I think if we have a longer duration we can take care of more GAC. I also need ideas on what awards to be handed out other than just GA medal of merit because I have taken a look at WP:BS and Commons, then realize there's no other awards that can be handed out for the backlog elimination. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There's always the core group of barnstars, the original and its offshoots. IvoShandor 10:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there are 3 barnstars that can be used - "The Original Barnstar", "The Working Man's Barnstar" (reviews def. can be said to be 'laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks.') and "The Special Barnstar". Infact, i think it would be best if we can create a "reviewer barnstar" provided to people who spend a lot of effort in reviewing articles at GA and FA levels. --Kalyan 13:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Then we need someone to create one. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Will someone knowledgeable about the GA process please clean up the situation at Talk:Raëlian Church ? There are continuing errors showing up in the error category for {{ArticleHistory}}, which appear to be partly stemming from some terminology used by GA. {{GAList}} uses the terminology GA review, although the template is used when evaluating a GA nominee (isn't GAN different than GAR?). The result is that GAR events are added to the articlehistory, with someone then deleting them because the article was never added. This is a mess; can someone please figure out what the correct terminology is, what processes have been in play at Raelian church (I don't understand how there can be three failed reviews if the article is still listed at GAC), and clean up the article's edit history and templates to match ? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Good article reviews are to discuss if a good articles still merit their good article status, if former good articles have been improperly delisted, or if good article nominations have been inappropriately failed. A problem is caused by the terminology used in Template:ArticleHistory. It requests the results of GARs to be either "kept" or "delisted". In the case of GARs for good article nominations inappropriately failed, the word "delisted" is inappropriate. This caused an editor to mistakenly remove a GAR from Raëlian Church's Article History, despite it being reviewed here. Epbr123 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen PocklingtonDan as the GA Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 7th July 2007. PocklingtonDan is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were 1. PocklingtonDan 2. Vimalkalyan 3. CloudNine 4. Hersfold 5. Z1720. Epbr123 11:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if reviewers would start using the section heading "Good Article Nomination review" on talk pages rather than "Good Article review", as this is easily confused with "Good Article Review". Thanks. Epbr123 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please fix this; it's confusing !! Wikipedia:Good article review is not WP:GAC, yet {{GAReview}} is the name of the template for passing GA nominations. The template should be renamed, and instructions corrected. This causes all kinds of confusion, which usually has to be straightened out on articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Like i've reccommended for months, just rename GA/R back to Good Article/Disputes, its not like GA/R mandates that commenters actually give a thorough review of an article anyway. Homestarmy 22:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if you raname GAR, using a template that says review for a GAC or GAN (nomination or candidate) still introduces three different terms. If it's Good Article Candidate or Good Article Nomination, the template should agree, and be consistent with {{ArticleHistory}} usage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

And what is the deal with {{GAReview}} and {{GAList}} ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, a nomination is the act of making the article a candidate. The GAReview template is for the GAC page so people don't accidently review an article while someone else is reviewing it, and GAList is a template many reviewers seem to like using in their reviews. Homestarmy 01:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To indicate the reviewed version of a Good Article, replace nnnnn with the id number of the reviewed version. This number may be found in the URL of the archived version.

The id number can not be obtained until you archive it. How do you do this? I believe this text needs clarification.AshLin 16:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

First, you do the candidate review on the talk page, so any editing to talk page doesn't affect the article. Second, there're 2 ways to obtain the "nnnnn" code. One is click "Permanent link" in toolbox on the left side nav bar. Another way is go to history and click on the last edit's date&time. However, I'm more concerned with using this template. Everyone should be using {{ArticleHistory}} instead of {{GA|oldid=nnnnnn|topic=}} as recommended by the template itself. Should we change the instructions to prepare for the upcoming backlog elimination drive? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll update the main page so that it reads better. Please oversee that I do not make things more unclear. Regards. AshLin 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ArticleHistory has a much larger learning curve to it than just the GA template, and a reviewer might have to work pretty hard to harvest history for other ArticleHistory events wihch often aren't even recorded until an article reaches FA status, that'd be a pretty big discouragement for many reviewers i'd think. Homestarmy 17:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to correct a lot of articlehistory templates done incorrectly by GA; please just use the GA template, and let GimmeBot update articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Akebono Taro represented a good article, however there is one editor who disagrees, and I am trying to resolve the situation without resorting to an edit war. However, I think this means that Akebono Taro cannot represent a Good Article under these conditions at this time. Is there a proper procedure to delist or can I just erase it from this section. ThanksXinJeisan 07:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User INFO-CENTER slapped the tag under my article nom (Development history of The Elder Scrolls series; also Planetarian: Chiisana Hoshi no Yume), but it appears he's since gone out to lunch. He hasn't edited in 4 days, and the last thing he did was create a cute little template with the words: "Wikipedia user Information Center (talk · contribs) is temporarily inactive," and add it to his user page. I left him a message on his talk page the day of, but he hasn't responded since. That's somewhat frustrating. Is there protocol for what to do in cases like this? Can the tag be removed and the article reviewed by another? Geuiwogbil 04:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's something he does a fair bit ;) Just remove the review tags, and someone (I'll do one if you like) will get to them soon. Giggy _U^CP 04:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd like that very much. It's just so...weird, to put the tag there and then...go on vacation? Okay, I'll remove the tag from my article, and let Juhachi decide what he wants to do with his nom. Thanks for the comment! Geuiwogbil 05:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So how broad does a GA have to be on a small city. Any tips on Oregon, Illinois? I have done one city GA, Springfield, Illinois but I think it was probably beyond the minimum when I submitted it. Is the Oregon article broad enough? What would need to be included to make it so? Any words would be appreciated. Thanks. IvoShandor 15:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's definately not broad enough. It's missing info on landmarks, education, transport, climate, sports, local media, government and economy. Epbr123 08:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Awadewit as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 14th July 2007. Awadewit is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Awadewit
2. LaraLove
3. The Rambling Man
4. Nehrams2020
5. LordHarris.
Epbr123 10:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

{{GAreview}} - I made this template to make informaing people that their GA has been or is being reviewed quick, easy and preset. Take a look GA reviewers, and tell me what you think. I appreciate all feedback. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen The Rambling Man as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 21st July 2007. The Rambling Man is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. The Rambling Man
2. Meowist
3. Awadewit
4. Johnfos
5. Mouse Nightshirt.
Epbr123 11:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The Rambling Man really deserves this. Excellent work! Giggy _U^CP 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there now a policy to dispense with putting GACs on hold? I can understand if the article in question is fundamentally flawed in many areas, but in the Bob Cousy article for instance, the article was failed in less than half a day when many aspects of the article (e.g. coverage, sources, image, stability) IMO at least, ensured that it was not far from a GA pass. Putting the nomination on hold would have encouraged a more interactive process, and the edit history shows that at least a trio of editors were on standby to address any loose ends. A pass can conceivably be expeditious, but an expedited fail (whatever the aim) is probably unncessary. I pass the preceding final comments without specific reference to the Cousy example, because I do not know if it is indeed near GA quality but am merely speaking from editing articles which made GA. Chensiyuan 14:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, an article has got to be pretty bad not to be put on hold, but it does depend on how interactive and useful the comments following a GA are. But I completely agree, just failing them doesn't tend to encourage editors to make the changes... The Rambling Man 15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't wish to reopen the case but I think looking at the Cousy article it really leans more towards decent than disastrous. Looks like the editors have to just take the fail as an opportunity to address any legitimate concerns. Chensiyuan 15:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The editors have two ways of dealing with this. They can either adress the concerns and re nominate it explaining what happenned (this is why the "on hold" was created), or they can go to WP:GA/R for the GAC to be reviewed. I would, however, make sure everything is OK by posting the article at WP:PR andexplaining there what happened.--SidiLemine 15:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there still necessarily a backlog on this page? Looking at the list, it looks like most of the articles in the list are on hold, with very few that have not been reviewed. Not sure if we need the backlog tag currently? Dr. Cash 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't. Tim Vickers 18:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I counted about four articles there without anything underneath, so I've taken off the tag. Tra (Talk) 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully we won't have to add it for again for a long time. The current drive really helped to bring the backlog down more than was expected. Good job to all editors who have helped, and keep at it. --Nehrams2020 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay. Top marks all round. The Rambling Man 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there is somewhat of a learning curve with this template, but among the well-known advantages of using this template, there is one very (in my opinion) overlooked aspect. The |gacat field. Over half of the listed GAs are uncategorized. That's over 1,500 articles. I've just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Uncategorized Good articles task force to hopefully gain some support and assistance from others in removing the articles from Category:Uncategorized good articles. If it is widely agreed that including ArticleHistory in the steps of the passing process, what about expanding the task force so that experienced editors interested in helping out scan the history of WP:GA to see what articles have been listed and, for those which don't have it, place the template on the article talk page and categorize? LaraLove 02:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with this, even I still have trouble with ArticleHistory, because I have to keep looking at the template again to figure out which acronym applies to, for example, an article that was FAC'ed, failed, but was once an FA in a distant pass, yet is now a GA, or something complicated like that (FA/RFFACGA?). It already takes quite a bit of clicking and fandangaling to list an article, you have to remove it from the nom page with edit summary, put in all the old-id's using the article's history page, actually give your review on the article talk page, (which can be further complicated depending on whether you use the GAreview template in your review) and figure out where on the GA page an article goes. None of it is really complicated, but eventually the number of steps could be a big turn-off for potential reviewers, and i've been noticing that some reviewers are rather new users. That's not bad of course, but making relatively new users have to deal immedietly with complicated template implementation stuff would certainly turn me off if I was a new user, if all the steps there already are to list an article didn't. If only the more technically inclined users or those who had the drive to become more technically inclined became GA reviewers, the pool of reviewers would be less representative of the community, and what should be the standards for "Wikipedia good articles" might become "Good Articles according to technically minded veteran Wikipedians". Homestarmy 21:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think {{ArticleHistory}} gacat is useful. See Main problem. Further, as presently implemented, {{ArticleHistory}} contributes to the categorization problem in a more pernicious way than the failure to use {{GA}}'s topic field. {{ArticleHistory}}'s gacat key word employs a categorization scheme that bears no relation to that implemented by {{GA}}; see the two tables at the bottom of this discussion for a comparison of the two schemes. Failing to use gacat with the {{ArticleHistory}} template results in no routing of the article to Category:Uncategorized good articles, so the article is uncategorized and there is no indication that it is uncategorized. Check any good article that has AH on its talk page, say Victoria Cross for Australia or Prospect Park Zoo. Can you find them inCategory:Uncategorized good articles? (no). Can you find Prospect Park Zoo in Category:Geography good articles? (The major category it occupies at WP:GA)? (no). Can Victoria Cross for Australia be found in Category:Social sciences and society good articles? (no). These are two "invisibly uncategorized" articles. They are in this state because AH does not employ GA's categorization scheme. Further, the values that gacat expects bear no relation to those expected by {{GA}}'s topic field and places good articles in categories that are unrelated to those employed by {{GA}}, so even using the keyword bears no useful result. One of the maintainers of {{ArticleHistory}}, Gimmetrow, recommends not using gacat.; it is an undocumented 'feature'.

I agree with User:Homestarmy that the {{ArticleHistory}} use case is tricky, therefore error prone. Even if gacat was modified to follow the behavior of {{GA}} topic field, there are a lot more fields, and a lot more ways to screw up. Members of the Featured Article project suggest that we do not use AH 'manually'; that we instead bend our efforts toward getting 1,500 or so {{GA}} tagged articles set up by ensuring that the GA oldids fields point to appropriate reviewed articles; See this discussion. In particular, note SandyGeorgia's parenthetical "We've found it's not optimal for editors to be manually installing articlehistory themselves, as there are usually errors—better to let Gimmetrow run GimmeBot.". I believe our end state ought to be (1) Adapt AH to support GA's topic categorization scheme (2) get AH on Good Article pages, but (3) never put them there manually; fill out a simpler 'proxy', like {{GA}}, and have a 'bot' replace the GA template with an AH; the bot will deal with the complex use case. My two cents. Take care. — Gosgood 17:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we've got WP:UCGA participants using {{GA}} and ensuring that all articles (as best as we can manage) have both the oldid and topic fields included. Geometry guy is going to alter AH to include the topic field, rather than gacat, providing there is no opposition from Gimmetrow or SandyGeorgia. Transferring both oldid and category date to AH can remain a bot task. Lara♥Love 05:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

{{ArticleHistory}} has now been fixed to include a topic parameter. The gacat parameter is left in place purely for historical reasons and backwards compatibility: please don't use it. Also, the topic parameter is no longer case sensitive, which should make life easier.

I suggest that those who are confident with {{ArticleHistory}} use it where appropriate: otherwise use {{GA}}; User:GimmeBot can migrate the data if necessary. Geometry guy 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Geometry guy! The invisible uncategorized are now showing up, so we have a realistic picture of what's going on. The world is a more orderly, if not better, place. Take care. Gosgood 16:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why the categories in GAC are not consistent with those at GA? LaraLove 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The main categories (Arts, Social Sciences, etc.) are. The minors aren't, for some inexplicable reason...so that's something that could be changed. Giggy _U^CP 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so is there any opposition to altering the list of subcategories to be consistent with those at WP:GA? Lara♥Love 05:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Four words: Good luck with that (Yes, it has my support). Giggy _U^CP 08:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the Institut Le Rosey article has very little public information available. The article recently failed a GA nomination primarily due to a lack of information (student life, academics, athletics). If the article's subject does not have enough information available, is it ineligible for GA status? Thanks, -- AJ24 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

The two sections which warn about possible future incoming information give me pause. However, if you can lay out the case for this article being as compleate as it possibly can be using reliable sources, and if the article didn't fail any other GA criteria, i'd be inclined to pass it, since the broadness requirement is "significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed. ". Homestarmy 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed because one of them nominated Solar power. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. No rules discriminate against it. Whether it fails or not is a seperate matter. Will ^(talk) 15:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just wondering since I'd never seen it before. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 16:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editors may not review an article, per step #1 under, "How to review an article." But I don't see a problem with anons nominating them -- if the article satisfies the good article criteria, that's good enough for me. So what who nominates it. Dr. Cash 19:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 28th July 2007. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Blnguyen
2. The Rambling Man
3. Drewcifer3000
4. Giggy
5. VanTucky.
Epbr123 11:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering Blnguyen's history this past month involving multiple tagging of articles at a time via the GAReview template, thereby "hogging" them and preventing other editors from reviewing them, it's no wonder he got so many reviewed over others. I don't think this award is very well deserved at all, and is a disgrace to the GA system, it's medal of merit, and other barnstars. The award should be retracted immediately. Dr. Cash 03:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh snif. If you were in the top five, that rant might be understandable. As it is...anyway, GAReview is used to stop edit conflicts, you're more then welcome to take articles that have been tagged for a few days. On another note...woo, 4th :D Giggy _U^CP 04:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I could care less if I was in the top five. I didn't even bother with this contest once I realized it was just a race for barnstars and review volume. That's not what the GA Review process is supposed to be about. And someone like Blnguyen that tags 5 and 6 articles with GAReview is not just "stopping edit conflicts" ... he's abusing the system. Dr. Cash 06:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a rule about passing articles that have been put on hold? User:Tarret has passed article Victoria Cross (Canada) that i had put on hold. Despite the Lead missing references, two images with WP:FURG Concerns, and when asked why he passed it he said : "in my opinion it was good enough for GA". -Flubeca^Talk 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Tarret has done this a few times. Take it to WP:GA/R, OR be bold and delist it yourself, then put it back on hold (with the same issues as before). And leave Tarret a note asking to stop. Giggy _U^CP 01:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No, don't take it to GA/R. Delist and return to on hold, explain why on the article talk page, and drop him a line on his talk page letting him know that it's not cool to take over other's reviews. Lara♥Love 05:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I clarified that on the front page -Flubeca^Talk 01:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines regarding the use of the GAReview tag, which indicates that an article is currently undergoing, or has been partially reviewed, by a reviewer? It seems to me like this tag should be used if an editor is actively reviewing an article, but I've seen several of these tags added and left on the article for several days. One user also just tagged about 5 articles with this tag late last night, early morning, with no notes on the talk page indicating a partial review (Blnguyen). It appears that he's "protecting" these articles from being reviewed by others, while not actually doing an active review. I personally don't think this is an acceptable use of the tag, as it somewhat discourages editors from reviewing certain articles. If you're actively reviewing an article, that's acceptable; but don't tag more than one article with this tag, and don't leave the tag up for several days. If you're leaving notes regarding the article's nomination, then use the GAOnHold tag. Perhaps we could add a task to the GA bot or something to automatically remove these tags if left for more than 24 hours? Dr. Cash 20:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it was just a one day delay. I looked at the article and straightaway got ideas, but it normally takes me a while to type them all up so I put a tag on them because I am not fast with typing , comparred to my brain picking these things up. It was only 24 hours. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I use these tags when I find an article interesting and mean to do it as soon as I can. Usually I browse the candidates page and tag the ones I'd like to review. Although I don't always get to them right away (not actively reviewing), I usually get to all within two or three days. I don't think there's a problem unless users are tagging articles and forgetting about them.

Agreed, if a tag remains for more than seven days then cry foul, other than that, don't worry about it. Having said that, tagging more than a couple at a time seems a bit over the top, this drive is pushing a lot of good GA reviewers into grabbing what they can get, a bit weird for a previous backlog. Anyway, I'd suggest fear not until those chosen articles reviews become neglected. The Rambling Man 20:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's more than a week, just remove the tag, put a note on the other editor's talk page, and review the article. These are just intended to stop two people reviewing the article at the same time. Tim Vickers 20:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

When it was first instituted, I was under the impression it would be used for when someone is going to start reviewing an article right that second and would do it all at once, so that someone wouldn't interrupt with some terse review, not to reserve articles so that someone can review it a week later. If you can't review an article right now, I really don't see a reason why you shouldn't allow someone else to review it. Homestarmy 21:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect I am one of those responsible for this discussion. More specifically, the case of Harry Potter influences and analogues. Well, here is my explanation. I began GA reviewing in this drive. I too thought that this is a twenty minute business, but one does'nt know what kind of a reviewer one is until one reviews. So I decided to choose six articles (to be on safe side for a barnstar) for review. I found that by the time I selected my first review, Deep Impact (space mission), and finished that almost all the articles that I was interested in had got snapped up by those who do reviews in tons! So I blocked at first three and then later a couple more. Unfortunately, instead of an hour or so, it took me several hours (in effect at least a couple of days) coupled with internet problems which delinked me for days at a time. I had to go to internet cafes many kilometers from my home just to reply my messages. I finally ploughed through them with lots of effort and hard work one by one and finally completed them - but it took me from 01 July till today! I like to think that the effort I put in was worth it as all the contributing editors appreciated my efforts. I had a diverse but enjoyable experience, four detailed reviews which passed with substantial improvement to the articles, one fail as no editor could be found to respond to the comments and one outright quick pass! But that is beside the point. Nowhere is it mentioned that review must proceed immediately. Secondly, once an article I was reviewing offline (Cretacious-Tertiary extinction event) that a passing reviewer passed it despite my 'GAreview' tag without a single comment and no post to me! Similarly today, as I was about to pass Harry Potter influences and analogues I found someone had removed my GAreview tag without a post to me once again. Now I may be 'in the wrong' for blocking a few links but so are those who reviewed the extinction wiki directly and the person who removed my GAreview tag without posting me. I have reviewed all the articles tagged by me with due diligence and have met my obligations. If anyone did feel so strongly about the delay, he need have but asked for me to step aside rather than the careless, unilateral kind of action in the two cases I specify. GA review is to me a me a very serious obligation, as is editing and other actions on wikipedia. That apart, I now know my capacity and would be tagging a couple of articles at most at a time henceforth. AshLin 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed your GAReview tag from the Harry Potter article, because you put it up on 7/22/2007, and I removed it on 7/25/2007, three days later. It looked like you forgot about it, and I thought it good to give another editor a chance to review it. Since it was three days later, I didn't think it was necessary to leave a message on your talk page.

Also, if you just decided to start reviewing articles, "for a barnstar," I don't think that's a very good reason to review articles. Reviewers should review articles because they know something about the topic and want to contribute to the process, not just to get some kind of award. Dr. Cash 18:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I accept the reason why you removed the tag, but wish you had posted me about it. As regards barnstars, thats your personal view. I started GA review because the GA reviewer of one of my articles Snake scales asked me to review one or more in turn. I saw the elimination drive and found that an incentive in the form of a barnstar was offered. The awards were advertised so it was perfectly acceptable for me to aspire to them. If I spent some of my precious time and effort to GA review 5 articles then they would give me a barnstar in turn. Absolutely Ok by me. Pesonally, since I chose articles in fields in which I'm interested - space, dinosaurs, military history, environment and Harry Potter, your last comment really doesnt apply to me. That apart, I do not see why I should limit my GA reviewing to only fields of interest. If I am familiar with GA criteria, review process, and do my job sincerely, I imagine I should be able to contribute in a field I am not involved in. In my choice of six, I forgot to mention I undertook an article in a subject well outside my field as a soldier & electrical engineer - Oxidative phosphorylation. I think that I have done my duty as per that article as the comments and my edits will show.

BTW, I have understood your concern and have decided to change my tagging behaviour, so your post has one convert, me! That apart, were there other GAreview tag violators? Except for the fact that my slow internet and overly laborious review technique brought me into spotlight, I dont think this use/abuse of tag was such a large issue to be concerned about. AshLin 19:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't find a day or two 'overly-laborious' for a GA review, especially where the article is a lengthy/complicated one ;) What would be useful would be an 'under review' tag that can be substituted for the {{GAnominee}} tag, for editors (like me) who can take a day or two to complete a review (thought I saw one here recently...) EyeSerene^TALK 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, the GAreview tag isn't bad in itself, but overuse can become a problem. When users add 4 or 5 of these tags to articles they're going to review in the near future (which is an awful lot), then that's pushing it a bit, just work on a couple at a time. Plus, the 3 day wait on it seems fine, if you don't read the whol thing in 3 days give someone else a shot (and if you do but aren't quite sure, that's what the on hold tag is for). Plus, if everyone could re-read WP:OWN, as it applies here. Wizardman 11:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer AshLin's question of "were there other GAreview tag violators?", yes. Lara♥Love 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to EyeSerene's comment about an 'under review' tag, I experimented a bit and came up with this:

Good article nominations/Archive 7 is a current good article nominee and is currently under review by: Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Nomination date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{User:Corvus coronoides/Sandbox|insert date in any format here}}

Of course, if we use it, it'll have to be moved out of my sand box, but take a look. What do you think? Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 17:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to your 'under review' tag. The whole point of the 'GAReview' tag is to let other editors on the GA candidates' page know that another editor is currently reviewing an article. It shouldn't be used to by a reviewer to "claim" an article to review several days later when s/he gets more time. Using an 'under review' tag on the article's talk page and not on the GA candidates' page completely bypasses the list, so other editors won't know that an article is being reviewed unless either (a) they go to the page in question or (b) the editor places BOTH the existing 'GAReview' tag at WP:GAC as well as your proposed 'under review' tag on the talk page, which seems a bit redundant.

Maybe the best solution to this policy is to adopt some sort of a "courtesy policy", whereby reviewers should contact the reviewer on their talk page if they are interested in reviewing an article that's been tagged by another reviewer for greater than one day. If an article has been tagged for greater than either 3 or 5 days, then it may be removed without warning (I'm leaning to 3, but I can see that consensus might be currently pointing to 5). I also think that the multiple tagging of articles (tagging more than 3 articles at a time) should be strongly discouraged. Dr. Cash 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about approaching a reviewer if the tag's been up more than a day. I think the time should be greater than that - I for one often tag articles, then get called away by my family to help with dinner and such and end up having to finish them later. This sometimes (although not usually) takes me more than a day - 2 to 3, at most. So I think the courtesy policy should come into effect at 3 days, and removal without warning at 5. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 20:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think that's excellent Corvus ;) I suppose it might be open to abuse, but no more so that the current tag for use on the GAC page. As was mentioned earlier, it can take time to review an article, and because I have had to fail a few for non-response to "on hold", before reviewing I like to inform editors that they may need to be available for additional editing following the initial review, and give them a chance (24hrs or so) to respond if they won't be available and need a postponement. Thus it can easily be 2 or 3 days between taking on an article for review and actually posting any results up, which is where a tag like the one above would be useful.

Re review 'ownership', I suspect part of the problem may be the barnstar awards based on number of reviews... EyeSerene^TALK 08:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The backlog elimination drive will soon be over, and in a few weeks we'll all be longing for the days people would tag six articles for review at once. Epbr123 09:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what the consensus is, relating to passing WP:WIAGA, on sourcing articles dealing with classical subjects where the sources used are mainly writers from the period. Often sources (such as Livy, Tacitus, Josephus etc) are the only real reference material for these eras - but due to their documented bias (eg Livy's pro-Roman POV) they do not IMO really meet WP:RS. I've asked this over on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome page, and opinion so far seems to be that, in areas where such sources are uncontested by modern scholarship, they are acceptable. I've noticed reviewers quick-failing well-sourced articles by citing this as the reason, which seems a little harsh to me. Perhaps one solution would be to add a caveat to such articles noting the uncritical use of such sources, although this could be unwieldy and inappropriate in places. Any advice? Regards EyeSerene^TALK 10:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've only had this problem happen to me one time, and then, the article involved used only one writer/historian as the sole reference. I could tell that the article's sole reliance on one source was clearly making the article biased with the writers perspective presented as fact basically everywhere, but I didn't see any evidence that it would be impossible to simply ignore the writer's biases and only mention the facts he proposed. And I don't see why this shouldn't apply to any article using very old sources as references, unless usage of the sources is actually making the article itelf biased or unless the actual reference itself is not considered reliable by, well, reliable sources, I don't see a good justification for quickfailing articles for having old references either. If it came up in a GA/R, and the sole justification for failing an article was that, in the nominators personal opinion, old references wern't reliable, I would not side with them. Homestarmy 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Homestarmy - that seems to be a resonable balance between common sense and policy. EyeSerene^TALK 12:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Classical articles should be based on reliable secondary works by scholars, just like any other article. Classical sources should only be used to supplement modern scholarship or provide interesting anecdotes and the like. The most important reason for this is that wikipedia editors are not viewed as experts (even if they are) and readers cannot be assured that the editors have carefully vetted the source - that is the job of scholars. If the classical sources agree with modern scholarship, why not use the modern scholarship? The reader has no idea if they agree if only classical sources are used. If only classical sources state a particular piece of information, it should not be included, as those sources are far from fulfilling WP:RS. Awadewit | talk 09:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And if there is no modern scholarship in an obscure topic that is covered by Wikipedia? Why are classical sources that may of been just as scholarly back in their day as modern sources are now always unreliable? If a source does not fulfill RS, then that doesn't mean it should be used to supplement the actual reliable sources, that's like saying one citation by an acclaimed scholar in a field should be accompanied by a bunch of Geocities.com pages which agree with him/her. Homestarmy 17:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And if there is no modern scholarship in an obscure topic that is covered by Wikipedia? - Then you can't write about it. This is the case in my field, eighteenth-century children's literature, quite often. Writing an article based solely on eighteenth-century book reviews would be absurd. Awadewit | talk 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are classical sources that may of been just as scholarly back in their day as modern sources are now always unreliable? - Because different standards were used to write classical histories than modern histories. What was considered reliable by the Romans is not considered reliable now for the excellent reason that they often reported rumors as truth, had no fact-checking, etc. We cannot use historical ideas of reliability - then we would be writing articles about all of the witches in seventeenth-century Salem. Awadewit | talk 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If a source does not fulfill RS, then that doesn't mean it should be used to supplement the actual reliable sources, that's like saying one citation by an acclaimed scholar in a field should be accompanied by a bunch of Geocities.com pages which agree with him/her. - I don't quite follow you. Awadewit | talk 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Awadewit, that does seem a very prescriptive approach, and one that is likely to see a lot of articles up at AfD that probably don't deserve to be there. If we take the view that any source that is not 'modern' is likely to be unreliable, then we will lose huge chunks of WP... and often there seems to be just as much of a problem with modern sources - historians writing from a different bias (such as revisionist, feminist, liberal or racial 21st century interpretations of ancient history). I honestly don't believe that excluding ancient aources adds to either the scholarship or credibility of an article, as long as any inherent bias in those sources is taken into account. EyeSerene^TALK 08:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I am simply following wikipedia's own rules regarding reliable sources. In no way can ancient sources be considered "peer-reviewed" or "fact-checked". Ancient sources are not considered reliable by experts in the field; scholars have to analyze them carefully and weed out a lot of unreliable material. As most wikipedia editors are not classics experts, they cannot do this. Moreover, wikipedia does not publish the opinions of its editors on primary sources, it relies on peer-reviewed, scholarly material in areas like this. I agree that all historians have a particular ideology, but that is different than the radically different methodology practiced by ancient writers (the discipline that we know as history did not even start until the eighteenth century). To counteract the problem of modern bias, one must read widely and present the views of feminists, marxists, microhistorians, macrohistorians, etc. The problem is that you cannot take your inherent bias out - it is impossible; if you have solved the problem of objectivity that currently plagues every single modern historian, I'm sure they would love to know what it is. I see no reason why we would lose huge chunks of WP if we relied on only scholarly classical sources: do you know how much has been written on the classical world? You could not read it in a lifetime. The articles that rely on ancient sources need to be sourced to modern historians; that will take time, I acknowledge, but it is the only way to have a respectable and reliable encyclopedia. Awadewit | talk 03:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully support the bulk of that - the problem comes as I see it where an ancient source is the only information we have about a subject. That source's biases and unreliability may be known, but the details of his errors may not. As someone put it elsewhere recently (discussing Tacitus): "...while he may be wrong, we don't know what he's wrong about." Thus modern historians are merely superimposing their own interpretation on the pre-existing interpretation of ancient historians. I can see that this might satisfy WP:VERIFY, and per WP:OR we can only reproduce what has already been published, but I don't believe that excluding ancient sources from an article somehow adds to the scholarship of that article. Uncritical use of such sources is different, but where they are unchallenged by modern historiography I don't see why there should be a problem. EyeSerene^TALK 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If an ancient source is all there is, we cannot rely on it. The first statement in WP:V is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (emphasis in original) It does not matter, in effect, that modern historians may be totally wrong. We go with what they say, not with what we think might be right. (I think we agree on this, but I am not sure.) I would agree that referencing ancient sources in tandem with modern sources that endorse their use is fine, but I would expect the prose of the article to reflect that: "Modern scholars agree with Tacitus that...." (or something along those lines. Awadewit | talk 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, agreed. My original concern was not so much that ancient sources may not satisfy WP:RELY (most obviously don't), but whether or not an article based on them warrants a quick-fail. My secondary concern was that it seems harsh to exclude ancient sources completely from an article about a subject we only know about because they wrote about it, but on the other hand explaining their bias every time they are used would be pedantic to the point of unreason. If I have understood correctly, you seem to be arguing that not only should they get quick-failed at GA, but if modern sources can't be found the article should not be written in the first place: a rather strict interpretation of policy EyeSerene^TALK 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would quick-fail an article based only or primarily on ancient sources, since they do not meet the WP:V and WP:RS criteria. Awadewit | talk 23:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• I would not exclude the ancient sources, but I would rely on them sparingly and I would carefully announce when they were being used. That does not mean one has to "pedantically" or painstakingly explain each source's problem; one must, at the very least, alert the reader to its use, though. Then the reader can choose to accept the information or disregard it. Awadewit | talk 23:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think that it is a strict interpretation of the policy to say that articles should not be written if there are no scholarly sources. I think that is precisely what the policy is saying. For example, there are many eighteenth-century children's books and authors that I would like to write articles on (that is my field of interest), but I cannot because there simply is no scholarship on them yet. Awadewit | talk 23:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for the clarification - I'll bear that in mind in future GA reviews. I'm no historian (other than having a general interest in certain areas), so it has been helpful to thrash this out. I don't think the WP policy on primary, secondary and tertiary sources was written with the ancient period in mind, but I've got a better grasp of how standards can be applied in this area now. I appreciate the time you've taken on this one ;) Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 00:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my response is late, i've not had as much occasion to log on lately due to problems with my ordinary computer. If there really is a stipulation in some policy somewhere that says no article should be written if there are only ancient sources and no modern scholarship on the subject, please, I invite you to help me out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triclavianism (2nd nomination), because nobody seems to be mentioning that. (The only notable reference is to one very old source, though not ancient like roman times ancient) Not writing an article about a book is one thing, obviously the vast majority of books that have ever been written are not notable enough for Wikipedia, irregardless of what references exist. But this is just a discussion about using old sources in general, and notability standards often differ when the type of article changes. (Such as with Schools)

Nextly, so what if different standards were used by scholarship in ancient times? Unless somebody in the present calls old scholarly works out for being unreliable, such as perhaps, with Josephus, (Or, more broadly, rumor-mill historians from a certain time period) then it seems to me that its rather ORish for us to deem them unreliable, I presume most ancient scholarly sources started out being considered reliable, so it seems to me that some extra sources would be needed to judge them unreliable, (or extra sources that obviously supercede older ones) rather than extra effort on our part to examine old sources to deem them reliable all over again.

Lastly, if these sources are compleatly unreliable, what I mean is that they shouldn't be used period, except for instances in which the sources themselves are discussed as part of the article subject, or things like that. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources, and no matter where it comes from, an unreliable source is an unreliable source, whether it be an anonymous Geocities.com page or, as you seem to say, ancient scholarly works. So if ancient scholarly sources are unreliable, they should be used just as much for referencing purposes as random Geocities.com pages are, and by that I mean pretty much never. I don't see any halfway reliable clauses in WP:RS that allow unreliable scholarship to help reference facts that are also referenced by reliable scholarship. Homestarmy 02:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I remember good articles used to have a little image - - in the top right, the same way featured articles have . What happened to that? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past, ad nauseum. You might want to start checking the debates here and here. Dr. Cash 04:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Are GA reviewers allowed to use bots to review the articles? I was surprised and dismayed at this recent bot review that I received. I can run a bot if I want. Awadewit | talk 02:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, that's scary to me. GA Review is just as much supposed to help the article grow as it is to assess it and that bot does not provide valuable feedback of any kind. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If that was the only action the reviewer did, that is unacceptable, however if they read the article and considered the points and added this as a way of making further suggestions, then it isn't quite so bad. I've dropped a note on the reviewer's talk page alerting them to this discussion. Tim Vickers 17:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

They left a single sentence and the bot review. That doesn't look like using the bot to supplement his/her own thoughts to me. Awadewit | talk 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain myself. The bot did not review the article, I did. I looked it over and assessed that it met the GA article criteria. That bot list is merely a list of bot generated suggestions to improve the article. I find it a useful tool in creating some good suggestions to improve an article. I'd always recommend another peer review to work towards further improvement on an article. Personally, I'm not the best peer reviewer, so when I pass an article for GA status, I hand out the bot's suggestions and the assumption that getting a peer review is open if you want more suggestions. DoomsDay349 18:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I might mention that I agree with Corvus coronoides that those bot recommendations are useless. I would agree with you that further peer reviews will always help an article (that is why I have one open now), but you provided no review at all. GAC is supposed to help an article "grow" as Corvus cornoides said. How can I make the article better, if you provide no real suggestions? The bot lists petty style issues and can't differentiate between well-worded and poorly-worded sentences. If you know that you are not a very good peer reviewer, I am not quite sure why you are reviewing articles at all. As an administrator, I would expect that you would know and abide by your own self-acknowledged limitations. Awadewit | talk 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(←)I agree that automated reviews are generally useless. They list issues that are generic and not necessarily relevant to the article being reviewed, which just causes confusion and unnecessarily wastes article custodians time. I've seen many automated reviews in the peer review process, which I think is a pain for everyone who requests one, but I must say this is the first instance that I've ever seen one used in the GA process. I have to agree with all of Awadewit's points. Lara♥Love 19:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the reviewer in question was just running the semi-automated Peer Review script to give the article some extra help, his actual review was terse, but despite the actual GA review's unhelpful lack of detail, I can't think of anything particularily wrong or invalid about it. I don't think a bot could be programmed that would be able to automatically review an article for GA status, several of the criteria are too deliberatly flexible for a mere script to be able to accuratly grade for, you'd need some very high level polymorphic script that can gain nearly human-like understanding into intuition, and for that, even the oft-quoted Wikipedia is not paper essay would not be ready to deal with objections concerning the increadibly complicated and space-hogging script that would result. Homestarmy 02:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a review but a list of non-pertinent recommendations. The bot belongs somewhere else (if at all), although I doubt the creator had any bad intentions. Chensiyuan 02:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Terse? and "despite the actual GA review's unhelpful lack of detail"? That's precisely the problem. The reviewer was relying on a bot (which is incapable of making helpful suggestions) to stand in for his/her review. Awadewit | talk 03:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a chance that DoomsDay349 is telling the truth, and that really couldn't find anything wrong with the article. Epbr123 22:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If only that were true. There is no such thing as the perfect article. :) Awadewit | talk 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

An article doesn't have to be perfect to be a GA, it just has to not have any flaws in it that would run afoul of the GA criteria. That seems more easily within the realm of possibility. Homestarmy 02:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

But GA reviews are not simply supposed to determine an article's GA-worthiness or lack-of-worthiness. They are also supposed to include "suggestions to improve the article" (WP:GAC). Awadewit | talk 00:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I should point out DoomsDay349 made similar reviews at Talk:St. Vrain massacre and Talk:Gilbert Stuart. Epbr123 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering what should be done in the case of an article such as Chris Benoit murder-suicide which is about a criminal investigation that is not yet over? I would think that this would fail good article criteria simply because as it says in the lead "The Fayette County, Georgia Sheriff's Department is currently investigating this case"? Surely this cannot be stable. Just thought I'd check here before a quick-fail. - Shudde ^talk 06:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Stability refers to edit-warring and substantial amounts of information being added and removed on a regular basis. Articles on current events are not disqualified simply because they must be updated frequently. As long as the information is accurate and sourced, the article is not currently or recently victim to edit wars or uncivil disputes on the talk page, and otherwise meets the criteria, it may be deemed a Good article. Regards, Lara♥Love 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[Update] Upon looking over the article, the dispute with the copyrighted image needs to be resolved prior to passing GA. Additionally, the prose needs to be tweaked, the use of quotes corrected per WP:PUNC, the one sentence sections need to be expanded and/or combined, wikification needs to be corrected (stand-alone years should not be wikified, for example), and the needless redlink needs to be removed. There may be more, but that's all I noticed. Lara♥Love 06:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Stability can sometimes affect GA status though (at least, from my experience). The day that Dream Days at the Hotel Existence was released, it was also GA reviewed, and the reviewer failed it mainly for stability, as reviews of the album and the like which would only be made available after its release would greatly change the article. Having not seen the article in question, I'm not sure if that will apply, and certainly it will usually apply in cases of edit wars. This is just an exception to the norm. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Having read the article, I don't think there's much that could be updated that would drastically effect the article. The article already includes a time line of events and details how he killed his wife, child and himself, when and what he did in the time between. Any additional information, in my opinion, would be minor. However, the prose is not currently up to standards. So the article has to be improved prior to GA regardless. Lara♥Love 15:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

One can also cite Pan's labyrinth's GA/R: the article was reviewed for lack of production info. After a quick search, some deemed the info unavailable at the time being, and decided that the article couldn't meet the criteria before the DVD release (where some bonus were expected to fill the gap). However, information was find in due course and the article kept its GA status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by $yD! (talk • contribs) 12:08, August 6, 2007

I just wanted to comment that since I stopped reviewing articles for GA status (because my comfort level doing so decreased--a lot--not because I didn't like to do them) this part of the encyclopedia has dramatically improved. Reviews are quickly completed, usually in not more than a few days, compare this with the period over one month I once waited for a review on Historic district. I would also note that the reviewers seem to understand the criteria and have a good grasp of the differences between GA and FA everytime I interact with WP:GA. Thanks a lot for all your quality work everybody. : ) IvoShandor 22:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It's the backlog drives that do it :) Now that we actually have a WP:GAC page you can load in less then an eon, it all gets done a lot quicker! Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 22:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen The Rambling Man as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 4th August 2007. The Rambling Man is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. The Rambling Man
2. Drewcifer3000
3. Awadewit
4. LaraLove
5. VanTucky.
Epbr123 00:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yay (again :P) for The Rambling Man! I'm so going to win this next week :P Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 01:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remember not to review articles solely to boost one's own "review count" for the purpose of achieving some pointless "GA Medal of Merit". Reviewers should review articles because they have some expertise in a subject and wish to contribute to the article's improvement in the process towards FA status. Dr. Cash 05:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that not all reviewers are here to "boost one's own "review count"", most, if not all of us are here to help with the backlog. Why not help out? The Rambling Man 11:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is currently no backlog. It has been eliminated. Dr. Cash 17:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why... The Rambling Man 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Showoff :P Besides, there's always a backlog. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 22:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And if you think the backlog has been eliminated, why are there currently 60 outstanding articles not being reviewed? The Rambling Man 09:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't just take quantity of articles into account to determine if there's a backlog or not. You have to look at the dates of nomination. The oldest article on the page was that was not tagged with either GAONHold or GAReview was nominated on 7/28/2007, just over one week ago. The vast majority of articles on the page were nominated within the last several days. I'd say, if we accumulate lots of articles that have been unreviewed for a month or so, then we have a backlog. Dr. Cash 21:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not assume that because I've been given this "pointless" award twice that I do not make my very best effort in reviewing GAs. I and many other editors are here for the right reasons, not for those you've outlined. In fact, if you have a problem with any GA reviews, you should take it to WP:GA/R, not just fire off at a group of people who are trying to do their best. The Rambling Man 10:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So true. Not to mention that if The Rambling Man was only doing it for the award, he would have stopped a few dozen reviews ago. Lara♥Love 14:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

We have articles dating back to 28 July...currently 62 not reviewed, as opposed to 16 on July 30. I've added the backlog notice back to the page :( Giggy ^Talk 23:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Umm, no it's not Giggy. Wait until there are articles on the list that haven't been reviewed for at least three weeks. July 28 - August 8 is only 11 days, not even two weeks. Dr. Cash 03:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And we can't get to work on solving the problem before then? Giggy ^Talk 06:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing's really stopping work from getting done, anyway. I just don't like using the word "backlog" when there really isn't any. I could see, however, the benefit of maintaining a permanent list of, say, the "oldest unreviewed articles", to highlight the 5 or so articles that have been untouched for the longest period of time. What do others think of this? Dr. Cash 23:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Get on it... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

*Sound of whip cracking* Lara♥Love 02:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've modified the backlog tag and added the list of the oldest five unreviewed articles. The list is updated by a bot, so it shouldn't be very hard to keep updated. But at least this will keep the list up there without the eternal backlog messages,... Dr. Cash 02:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The tag appears to be using the old organization scheme... I assume this will be fixed when the bot updates the tag? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure. I don't think the new organizational changes should make a difference to the bot, but we'll see what happens when it runs tonight. If it's an issue, I'll leave a message on the talk page of the bot, or it's maintainer. I did add a link to the bot's report page to that tag as well, since that could be useful to users. Dr. Cash 05:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the report page again, yes, the bot will need to be updated. I have left a note on the talk page of the bot maintainer. Dr. Cash 05:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Many articles marked as Long Articles aren't when you you exclude tables, footnotes, images, infoboxes, etc... See Wikipedia:Article size. The size should only include "readable prose". I saw that the Kinston Indians article was tagged as a long article. The people who worked on this article made a special effort to keep the size under control according to the rules at Wikipedia:Article Size. 69.68.238.142 12:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced of the necessity for the 'Long Article' qualifier. I can sort of see the logic behind it, in the sense of notifying a potential reviewer that an article may take longer than normal to review, but wouldn't most reviewers at least glance through an article first before deciding to take it on? Per the above comment, it can also be misleading... and who can be bothered to work out the actual prose length rather than just reading 'length in kb' off from the top of the edit page? EyeSerene^TALK 17:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the long tab often deters newer reviewers, which can be considered a good thing in that there is the potential for more mistakes which may be overwhelming for an inexperienced reviewer. Lara♥Love 02:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 11th August 2007. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Blnguyen
2. Awadewit
3. LaraLove
4. The Rambling Man
5. EyeSerene.
Epbr123 12:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the more and more that I see these updates, the more I realize two constants: (a) the backlog elimination drive has done a lot of good in both reducing the backlog at WP:GAC, increasing editor awareness in the Good article process, and contributing to increased quality of Good articles as a whole; (b) while there still remains a general issue with a couple of rather poor quality reviews, and probably a small percentage of reviewers that are just in it for the barnstars, I think this is the minority. The reviewers listed on the top five 'reviewer of the week' updates are, in fact, performing rather good reviews (and some, also with a good quantity AND quality of reviews). Specifically, it looks like my earlier criticism of Blnguyen was actually unwarranted, and rather pointless -- my apologies. Congrats this week to all of the aforementioned reviewers! Dr. Cash 20:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Well I accept the apology, there's no hard feelings. I've had a lot more headaches: User:Blnguyen/J'accuse and also heaps of people trolling WP:ANI and do forth using condemning me with questions about things which didn't happen. I also apologise for my rather aggressive and prickly reply to your original comments on my talk page. I only used the {{GAReview}} tag once, although last time I did use it a few times, although when I checked I had at most two at a time in that status and none for more than 30 hours. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the increased efficiency at GAC seems to be fuelling more demand. Which means that if we lift our game the expectations will continue to be lifted and it'll be like the rat-cycle thing. Anyway, if it fuels article growth then it is ok. I started reviewing more since I have got 15 GAs now, 11 of them in the last 2.5 months, so I guess as long as people are willing to reciprocate things should be ok. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well hurrah! I think, in general, all reviewers have been acting in good faith. Indeed, until I got the backlog drive notification I'd been somewhat absent in GA reviews. The fact I've now (hopefully well) reviewed 67 articles in this drive is a testament to the backlog drive. We're all fighting for the same thing and it's great to read Dr. Cash's retraction. Long live GA. The Rambling Man 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Just noticed that I'm in the top 5! Not sure how that happened (I think everyone else must be on holiday), but cool all the same :D EyeSerene^TALK 10:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call, you guys! You've done a spectacular job! Now, no resting on your laurels: there's work to be done!! Chop chop!! Just messing... --linca^linca 10:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at this please. On August 10, I turned down the GAC. It was the second in a week. The main author, Zalgt (talk · contribs) appears to have self-passed his article. I usually do not go and revert some article that I have already judged, so I am reporting here. In my mind, the article is still at least totally unsourced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed at GAR. Wrad 02:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I caught this earlier today and placed it at WP:GA/R. Dr. Cash 03:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have gone ahead and reorganized the candidates page to more closely match the actual GA list. Some categories were condensed to save space, but the two pages should mirror each other now. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note - the Wikipedia:Good_article_candidates#Nomination_categories section needs to be redone to fit the new organization system. I would do it, only I tried and got confused. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I just removed it. Seeing as it was redundant anyways (There IS a table of contents in the page...)--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I put it back? I literally use that every time I go to the page because it saves time and effort to scroll through so much boilerplate. It did not need to be altered. It was right as it was. Only subcategories were altered, not the eleven main categories. Lara♥Love 02:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And, on a bigger note, thank you for doing that. I think the condensing of subcategories to save space is fantastic. The nominations page doesn't have nearly as many articles listed and thus does not need to be broken up as much. Great work! Lara♥Love 02:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Have at it. If you put it back, make sure you match the list to the top-level categories as they now appear. There have been a few minor changes to order and such... And thanks for noticing! My goal in organizing the nom page was to combine making it easy to place the nominated article in the right category at WP:GA and still avoid having hundreds of unused categories. I think I struck an OK balance. If you think we need to condense more, be my guest. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I use this list, too. So I've added it back, as well as matched it up with the new categories. It's much more convenient to scroll the short distance to that list, than to scroll all the way through the larger TOC,... Dr. Cash 03:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) Thank you both! I may go in and trim the sub-categories a bit more. I particularly appreciate the addition of misc subcats in each cat. That will prove to be very useful. I've had a couple of instances where I've had an article that just didn't fit into any category listed at the time. In fact, Jayron, I think it was you that helped me list Jean Keene because I had no idea where to put her. I'm so impressed with the speed at which this project is being improved overall. So impressed. Lara♥Love 04:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that it might be helpful to post a notice alerting reviewers to the style guides articles in various categories should conform to. For example, WP:MUSTARD for music articles and WP:PW/Style guide for Pro Wrestling articles. Before I knew about these, I noted what I thought were mistakes in my reviews, but was later informed that there are different standards for these topics. With that said, if others agree, it could possibly go under the nomination categories. It seems like an appropriate spot, and there's room. Thoughts? Lara♥Love 15:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for that - it sounds like an excellent idea to have them in there somewhere. EyeSerene^TALK 15:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment, the page seems much more cluttered now and the table of contents is difficult to parse for information. Just a comment, makes it a bit more difficult to navigate. IvoShandor 09:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to see a considerable reduction in subheadings; the table of contents is way too long, and there are as many subheadings as there are GACs. We are lucky to have two or three science candidates in total, yet there are dozens of natural sciences subheadings! I'd like to see someone "be bold" here and reduce this clutter. –Outriggr § 04:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It might look a bit less cluttered if the word "candidates" was removed from each subheading. Epbr123 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the TOC to only display the 2nd and 3rd level headings, which eliminates most of the 4th level headings. We could adjust it to only show the 2nd level headings, but I still think the 3rd level headings are pretty useful, and it's overall much cleaner than it was. I've also removed the word 'candidates' from each subheading, and modified the instructions on each section to match this new arrangement. Dr. Cash 04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renominated for GA status, apparently a third time. While at first glance, it appears to meet most of the GA criteria, I am still hesitant to pass this based on the fact that the 2007 football season hasn't even started yet, and the article is expected to undergo heavy editing during the next four to five months. I am not sure why the primary editor is so eager to get this to achieve GA status. Perhaps he's just a very devoted fan? What do others think? Dr. Cash 22:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that he's a devoted fan. Would that all college football editors were so high quality :) As for the stability issue. I don't know... Wrad 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see this discussion, anyways I failed it due to the likely possibility that other anonymous IP fans will be willing to update the article with probably, unencyclopedic info on the games. No reason in passing an article only to have it de listed in a matter of weeks. T Rex | talk 13:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some people who keep tabs on articles 24/7 and if that's the case any inappropriate edits would not stay for long. Personally I'm always looking out for a number of articles on soccer players, and when the soccer season starts, they receive (for the lack of a better term) bad edits everyday for some 8 months. But the quality of the articles aren't affected (by that I mean the original integrity of the article as when it was passed as GA) because errors are cleaned up before they stay for long.

But of course, in the Texas Longhorn case, we're talking about an article that will undergo rather dramatic changes as the season progresses, as opposed to cleaning up rampant vandalism. To the extent that we cannot presupopse that the quality will be sustained with every edit that expands the article, stability may be compromised. Yet chances are, it is the very same devoted fan who got the article up to GA that will be the one who continues the expanding of the article, so it's likely he'd know how to keep it at a good level.

Overall, it's a very tough judgment call, given the number of assumptions one has to make. Chensiyuan 08:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a criterion is "page stability" and though presently it appears to be pretty stable, its stability could easily be swayed in near time to come. After all, we don't know if the editor will slow his/her edits on the page just because it gets to the level he/she wants it to get to. If that happens, then there's a possibility of nobody with satisfactory wikisense to keep an eye on it. Of course, we could always delist it, if appropriate. I'm against it, but if it's passed, I'm not too concerned, because if wars break out, it's just cause to delist. --linca^linca 13:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article may or may not be GA status a month from now. Who knows? As all articles are freely editable, this is true for any GA and FA article. The stability issue has to be backward looking. Do you see edit wars and 3RR violations in the recent past? Do you see quibbling and bickering on the Talk page? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While the article is certainly well sourced, I do not think it meets GA criteria. If I had one word to sum it up, the criterion of "completeness" should be used here: obviously the article cannot be complete until the season is over. Looking at the existing criteria, I do not believe it currently meets the following criteria: 1) ("It is factually accurate and verifiable" - none of the games have been played, so the facts are unknown and unverifiable now), 2) ("It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;" again, the games are the major aspects of the season and are unplayed, so the coverage is incomplete), and 4) ("It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day..." again, this article will change significantly each week of the season as it is updated). If the article were "Preseason views of the 2007 Texas Longhorn football team" I think it would be fine as a GA, but likely to be deleted or merged once the season was over. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I do think this is a GA of the best kind. It is about the team, not the season. It's broad, accurate, and stable. I'm listing this for a review.--SidiLemine 14:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the failure of the current GA, the key word right now is "stable". See the discussion above: within a month, you're going to be adding new information to the page. Vigilant editors will make sure that information added is GA, but those that are determining if an article is a GA or not cannot easily determine that knowledge. I think from what the GAC failure comments stated and what I've seen and what others said that as long as the quality of the article maintains itself from now and through the 2007 season (including any BCS games), it can easily become a GA sometime roughly in mid- January 2008. But not now, not before any seasonal performance has been added and is known that it will be added. --Masem 14:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

GA/R's have often been used to address people's concerns that an article shouldn't of been failed as a nom. Homestarmy 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Homestarmy. I felt it was the right place for this discussion. To Masem: Nowhere in the GA criteria is it written that an article should be assured to remain stable in the next few months. Only that it be stable at the nomination time. --SidiLemine 15:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• As a contributor to the article as well as the nominator for GA, I remain of the opinion that the article meets the GA standards. The two possible objections that have been mentioned are completeness and stability. I will speak to each one:

Stability - this article is stable and free from edit warring. It is certainly possible that it may become unstable in the future, but that is true of any article on Wikipedia. We should not try to peer into a crystal ball and find hypothetical future problems. This article is closely watched for vandalism and destructive edits, and it is highly unlikely that any such problems will impact the article more than momentarily. The article meets the stability criteria today.

Completeness - this article thoroughly describes the topic as it is known at this time. If we ever send humans to Mars then we will surely learn some new things and of course our article Mars will need updating, but that should not be counted against the article today. As to this article, as each game is played, it usually only takes a couple of paragraphs to add the main points into the article. More detailed information goes into sub-articles according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style on Wikipedia:Summary style. For an example, please see 2005 Texas Longhorns football team, which is a current GA. The article meets the completeness criteria today.

It has been asked why even consider this article at this time? My reply to that is that a "good article" should be recognized as a good article. If we think this article is an example of some of our second-best work (behind FAs) then we need to recognize it as such. Doing so would provide an example to other people who are writing similar articles.

If the article is not worthy, then it should fail. However, it should not be failed because of hypothetical future considerations. If it meets the criteria today then I believe it should be passed today. Thank you, Johntex\^talk 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ruhrfisch's view. The article is going to change significantly from week to week because it's about a sports season that hasn't occurred yet. This is a clear case of WP:IAR, it's obviously going to have to be expanded significantly over the next year or so, and any arguments regarding the exact meaning of the stability issue are semantic. Should wait till the season is over then nominate. - Shudde ^talk 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can an article be both a WP:FL and a WP:GA? In the near future Chicago Marathon will likely be nominated at WP:FLC. From my experience and the recent promotion of List of winners of the Boston Marathon, I think it has a good shot at promotion. Its text also has a modest shot at qualifying for WP:GA. Can an article be both a WP:GA and a WP:FL?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The article looks more like an article with a list in it really, rather than a list accompanied by some explanatory text. The title would suggest an actual article anyway. Homestarmy 04:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives was for over a year listed as both FL and GA. I noticed when it was summarily delisted from GA a couple weeks ago. Gimmetrow 06:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

GA does not handle list, from my understanding, because any hypothetical set of "good list" criteria would be largely identical to the "featured list" criteria, and thus it would be superfluous. The very nature of lists means that there is much less of a difference between a "bad" list, an "adequate" list and a "great" list; basically the list is either complete or it isn't; and it is well referenced or it isn't. Thus, GA does not handle lists, and instead recommends that they be taken straight to FLC. If an article that is primarily a list does end up being in both places, it SHOULD be taken down from GA without prejudice; featured content shouldn't remain at GA. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet, the counter-example was there for over a year... Gimmetrow 18:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet the existance of said counterexample means nothing. With over 2000 GA's occassionally an unqualified article remains on the list longer than one would like. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The FBI most wanted article seems more like a list with a bloated lead giving some explanation, its not really enough of an article to be a GA I think, and even if it was, all of the article content seems to be in the lead, so that's a fail whether its an article or list. Homestarmy 13:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet, you did not fight to delist it despite being aware of it, so apparently it wasn't a serious issue. Not long ago someone asked if an article could be both FA nd FL. There is a grey area of sorts with "annotated lists", or lists with substantial text, and someone had found a FA that was remarkably similar in structure to some recent FLs. While a number of editors objected, a number had no problem with the idea of a page being both FL and FA. Gimmetrow 02:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 18th August 2007. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Derek.cashman
2. Dinosaur puppy
3. The Rambling Man
4. Blnguyen
5. Awadewit.
Epbr123 00:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Epbr, can you collect numbers attached to each of the top 5, so we have an idea how many reviews the top had? That'd be great. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this is rather ironic, considering some of my earlier posts regarding the backlog contest a month ago. Though I now see that these things are actually considerably improving the GAC process, so it's a good thing! Thanks for the kudos, and congrats to the others on the top five,...

On another note, it seems like the backlog may be picking up again somewhat, so I guess I better get back to work,... ;-) Dr. Cash 00:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, this is an EXCELLENT way to stimulate activity; all WikiProjects should adopt something similar. — Deckiller 01:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done Dr Cash. The Rambling Man 08:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done, although I can safely say I didn't deserve 4th place. All I did was wrap up a few holds that weren't attendeed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm kinda surprised I ended up here. Good job Dr Cash. T Rex | talk 09:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For those of you passing GAs, remember that you want to set both the "oldid" and the "topic" parameter in the GA template that you add. (If you're adding an ArticleHistory bit, you just need the "topic" parameter.) Now that the GA and GAC topics are normalized, you can easily figure out what the topic parameter is, either from this short list or by setting it to the full name of the very top level category (NOT The subcategories!) Oldid can be get by looking at the url for the "permanent link" on the article page in the toolbox on the left side.

The main reason for this is that we've just gotten through classifying all the uncategorized GAs, and while the Category:Uncategorized good articles remains nearly empty, it does fill up at a interesting rate, I found 9 there today after cleaning it out 3 days ago. We don't want these to fill up as bad as they were before (like around 1000 when we started the task force drive). --Masem 05:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It was around 2,500 including AH-tagged articles. Thanks for posting this. Lara♥Love 19:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

'If you're adding an ArticleHistory bit, you just need the "topic" parameter.' What is this intended to say? {{ArticleHistory}} needs an oldid, too. Gimmetrow 22:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I meant something like that -- more along the lines that if you are adding a AH bit, you likely already know that you need to add the oldid as part of the information, but the topic parameter is also part of AH too that needs to be included when an article clears GA (as it is a more recent addition to the template). --Masem 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I just wanted to drop a line about User:OhanaUnited. He just pretty unilaterally removed 1-month old GA Red Auerbach, just citing minor shortcomings in 2 lines, and then failing the article after 4 days. He completely failed to inform the main editors (User:Onomatopoeia, User:Chensiyuan and others), never listed the article on WP:GA/R for discussion, and never listed the article on WP:NBA for any discussion for our WikiProject, yet stating "he did everything he did to let everybody know", see Wikipedia:Editor review/OhanaUnited. Is this 99,9% unilateral, if-no-discussion-comes-I-just-retract-GA a new modus operandi I don't know about, or what is going on here? Thanks for reading. —Onomatopoeia 12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No he was completely wrong in trying to remove it without consensus as well as according to you, trying to hide the fact that he did that. It should probably be restored to GA and taken to WP:GA/R immediately. T Rex | talk 12:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, doing it now. Onomatopoeia 12:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is allowed to immedietly remove articles from the GA list if someone feels an article is obviously a failure, but of course, it is just as legal to contest such failures at GA/R, as I suppose you've already done. Homestarmy 14:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Regarding the article, I think with all respect, that Red Auerbach is hardly a quick-delist candidate. In fact, OhanaUnited "worst" argument was a missing fair use tag, which he could have easily inserted himself instead of for the delist. I put the article on WP:GA/R, and now I see what happens. —Onomatopoeia 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only person that spotted faults in the review. LaraLove spotted it earlier than me.[1] T Rex, do you think my action completely wrong? I am disappointed to see you stating the word "completely" because that is an outright violation of WP:AGF. Finish reading the "this page in a nutshell" in AGF? Take a deep breath, everyone, and read it again. My worst argument is the FUR tag, how about my BEST argument? Onomatopoeia admitted 2 references are problematic, agreed and corrected it. What this editor did was great, and improved the article. [2] [3] And T Rex, how can I "hide" the fact that I did it? The history tells the whole story. I'll now wait for other editors opinions as well as the outcome from GAR. Have a good day. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) I did the quality review of this article and tagged it as not done with several other articles. Some were tagged as questionable. It was my recommendation to Ohana that he delist all articles tagged as not done and send all questionable articles to GA/R, so I'm the one you have beef with, not him. Lara♥Love 05:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Answered on you talk page. Just to underline how BOGUS this GA retraction was, here OhanaUnited's quotes on the Red Auerbach talk page

• I'm expressing my concerns regarding this GA review. I felt that this article has passed the review even though it didn't meet the standards. First, notes and reference section should be merged. Reference #6 and #10 have no sources! Where did you obtain the information from? This article needs more varieties of references than the existing ones. I also found Image:RedMemshamrock.png lack of fair use rationales. Lead section should be summarized and shortened furthur. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• And then four days later: As my concerns are not addressed, the article will now be delisted. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Was there ANY warning? This was just a general remark, and at BEST, a non-binding appeal for copyedit. It was NEVER clear that GA delisting was a topic. —Onomatopoeia 10:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you should assume good faith. It sure does look like Ohana made it clear that the article didn't meet standards at GA with this sentence: I felt that this article has passed the review even though it didn't meet the standards. He comes out and says it doesn't meet the standards. Considering his comment wasn't addressed for five days, I would say that's fair warning. After all, GA is about creating good articles, collaboratively, not about who can get the most green pluses. I don't see why everyone gets so offended at a "delisting." Who cares? Do you really think readers here have any idea what a GA is? Do you think they even care? Come on, everyone wants to have petty little bickering fits instead of trying to improve the encyclopedia, which is what GA is all about. Instead of everyone complaining here everytime someone does something they disagree with, how about just addressing the issue and relisting it for GAC, I don't see the big deal, because it isn't one, it's only GA not the end of existence. IvoShandor 12:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Assuming faith cuts both ways. None of your points make any sense, by the way. You're talking to a couple of folks, who like yourelf, have tried their level best in grinding out the GAs. Yet you think having GAs de-listed is no biggie. Ever heard of counter-productivity? Didn't that discourage you? Chensiyuan 13:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

None of your points make any sense. That's what they call a great argument. What would you rather have? All your precious GAs devaluated because the general GA level is near zero? Or having one delisted, and all the others considered near FAs?--SidiLemine 14:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Chensiyuan 14:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I'll consider thatyou are re-applying your previous arguments to me.... You talk about counter productivity. Is your goal to have as much articles as possible have a little plus? Or to have as much great articles as possible?--SidiLemine 15:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Having a GA delisted isn't counter-productive unless you don't use the opportunity to improve it. How none of my points make any sense, I am not sure. I have listed my own articles at GAR, I wouldn't care if it got delisted, I would fix it, discuss with others on how to fix it etc. In the end the designation of GA doesn't mean much other than a couple people thought it was good. It's not like GA reviews conducted by Joe Schmoe on complex topics have fleshed articles for accuracy or anything, just made sure there were sources, and everything was in line with proper English. The designation has little meaning outside of the circle of editors who participate in the process. This discussion is what is counter-productive, it isn't establishing any great ideas or new policies, it's just a couple pissed off people, complaining and one telling me nothing I say makes any sense. I am really tired of people like you (Chensiyuan). IvoShandor 01:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone follow the "minimum of 2 days" part of the template? It seems like if an article is improved in less that amount of time, there's no reason to wait until two days have passed (though obviously it's a good idea to avoid having articles on hold for more than a week). 17Drew 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up - I was wondering about this myself. Personally, I haven't been sticking to the 2-day minimum; if any issues have been addressed, and the article has settled down from being edited as a response to the GA review, I'll pass it anyway... I'd be interested to get other opinions too though. EyeSerene^TALK 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never payed attention to that. Of course, when I'm busy, I usually don't get around to a thorough final check until after that time... David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the purpose of the 2 day rule is to give editors enough time to fix the article before the reviewer fails it. If the problems are fixed in under 2 days, then it's ok to close the review early. Epbr123 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to remove the last sentence and replace the second one with "However, an editor has placed this article on hold because it needs minor changes to meet the good article criteria. Editors have one week from the time of the review to make the changes outlined below."? That way, there's no implication that the article can't be passed before two days, and the article will still remain on hold for a week? 17Drew 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never followed a 2 day min. if the changes have been made. Drew's suggestion seems like a good clarification to me. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I once passed an article 20 minutes after adding the tag (David Fuchs - DoTA). So I totally ignore it :) Giggy ^Talk 00:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] Since there seems to be consensus that the two-day minimum wasn't helpful, I've reworded the template. If anyone disagrees with the change though, please feel free to revert. 17Drew 04:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting it!! Not really. Seems reasonable to me. I agree with Epbr123, I think it's a matter of not failing it in less than two days. Lara♥Love 06:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors have no more than seven days from the time of the review to make the changes outlined below. This will influence the reviewer in passing or failing the article as a good article - I just noticed the new template. I am unsure what "this" refers to - it looks like the speed of the changes, rather than their quality, will affect the outcome. Awadewit | talk 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we not make it positive rather than negative, i.e. Editors have up to seven days from the time of the review to make the changes outlined. - at least two editors I've spoken to have really appreciated the GA process because of its personal nature, we should encourage this. I had an article on hold for two weeks because I knew the principal editors were away. There seemed little point in failing it when I knew they'd be back, and if they found that I'd just failed it out of policy they probably wouldn't have bothered. The Rambling Man 22:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I like that better, too. Awadewit | talk 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

  I was considering that wording but I wasn't sure if that implied that the reviewer could fail it anytime in the next seven days. On second thought though, it seems clear enough that that's not the case. 17Drew 03:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been something like 11 days since the backlog elimination drive ended, and there's already a huge backlog. I can only imagine things are going to get worse. Does anyone think a more long-term elimination drive type thing would be a good idea? Similar to the assessment drive of Wikiproject Bibliography maybe? Still the same x reviews you get a prize type thing, but maybe with higher requirements and without an end date? Might help over the long haul. Just a thought. Drewcifer3000 08:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What's this "WikiProject Bibliography" assessment drive you're talking about? Can you provide a link? I can't even seem to find a "WikiProject Bibliography" either?

I think another assessment drive would probably be a good thing. But I'm not sure we want to do away with an end date. I think it's nice to have clear cut start and end times to keep track of things better. Plus, with no end date, a reviewer that does 25 reviews in one month or one year would still get the same reward, which is kind of silly.

What we might want to do is to have a longer-lasting assessment drive, maybe starting on September 1 and going through the end of October, or even November. We could call it the Fall GA Assessment Drive, and post regular updates throughout the fall season. Divide the fall up into three months, post weekly updates, and have some partial awards at the end of each month, and maybe devise some bigger awards for the three-month period. If that works out pretty well, then maybe take a break for the holiday season, and have another assessment drive in Spring 2008. Dr. Cash 21:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm silly. I meant WikiProject BIOGRAPHY not Wikiproject:Bibliography. What I was thinking was something more along the lines of their assessment drive. It's longer term, but at the same time has higher requirements for awards. Granted, assessing an article is way easier than a GA review, but I think the previous GA review backlog drive was a little too easy. But in all fairness it probably had to be since it was a short-term drive. But yea, I'd be down to start some sort of September/October/November drive. Maybe reoccuring bi-seasonal drives would be a good habit to get into around here? I assume just anyone can do that kind of thing, not just admins? Drewcifer3000 21:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I decided to take a look at the last backlog, sometime before the previous backlog drive. (here's a random diff I found for reference). I comparison, I'm not sure the current backlog warrants the same type of drive as the previous one. I dunno, just though I'd bring that up for reference. Drewcifer3000 22:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started a proposal for a fall 2007 review drive. You can review it here. Please feel free to make suggestions and/or revisions. Discussion can be done on it's talk page. The drive would start on September 1, which is one week away. So it would be good to get everything finalized in the next 3-5 days, if there is interest in pursuing this. Dr. Cash 23:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen The Rambling Man as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 25th August 2007. The Rambling Man is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. The Rambling Man
2. Awadewit
3. David Fuchs
4. Derek.cashman
5. Dinosaur puppy.
Epbr123 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started a discussion over at the GA criteria page about the requirement of in-line citations in GA articles. Hopefully this should clear up quite a bit of debate over at WP:GA/R and elsewhere. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The review of Harold Pinter seems to have turned sour. The first reviewer, the one listed as placing the hold on the candidates page, seems to have quit after getting into it with NYScholar over the style of referencing. Wrad is now discussing it at length with him, but no one seems to have officially taken up the review. I partly blame myself for this, as I originally took the review but wasted so much time doing outside research for accuracy that it just got silly and I reopened it for reviewing. Anyway, it seems to be at a standstill at the moment and I don't know what to do. From my perspective, NYScholar seems to be being unnecessarily combative and possibly having ownership issues. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say close it as fail. NYScholar has said himself (herself?) that he didn't apply for GA, so he probably won't care anyway. It doesn't meet the criteria and won't in the recent future. Wrad 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I just failed it. Wrad 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am currently reviewing Joe Nathan and it is my first review. I think it is going well but i have two questions. 1) There are some remnants of passive voice, as the reviewer can i fix those and then pass the article? 2) If i cannot change them myself, can the article be passed if there are a small number of passive statements - i think the article is good overall. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you know how to fix the problems and they aren't major then yes, you can fix them and pass the article. Or you could put it on hold and ask the nominator to fix the problems. T Rex | talk 20:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll do what i can and then pass the article ... i'll let you know when that happens in case you want to "review my review". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked over it and left notes on the talk page. LARA♥LOVE 03:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• I replied there as well, thx Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidently some people at WT:FAC want to just axe GAC, period... David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like just one person, not sure if we should all jump into the discussion. Homestarmy 16:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of wasting our time arguing with Dev920, why not go and write some GAs? Currently, during my spare time, I am collating references for an article which I will write (and push to GA status) after my O Levels. By the way, I'll never take I Not Stupid (my first GA) to FAC, because she'll just tell me to "cite your sources or go f*** yourself" (in fact, if GA didn't exist, after rewriting the article, I would not have tried to spend hours researching for information, add references, upload screenshots, seek copy-editing and do everything possible to improve it to GA status). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Johnfos as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 1st September 2007. Johnfos is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Johnfos
2. Phil Sandifer
3. The Rambling Man
4. Derek.cashman
5. Alientraveller.
Epbr123 12:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the consensus on passing articles that are well-sourced, but those sources are in languages other than English? I'm currently involved with one that has sources mostly in French (which thankfully I can just about manage) with no English equivalents. My inclination is to pass the article, but the guidance on WP:SOURCE seems to imply the citations should be professionally translated... which seems overly-picky for GA (although understandable at FA). Comments? EyeSerene^TALK 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I normally give negative reviews on articles that are mostly sourced with foreign things, to the effect of there being only a few english sources overall. The way I see it, if I can't read almost every source, there's no way I can honestly say the article is well-referenced. Every foreign source could be unreliable and it would be nearly impossible for me, or most readers of Wikipedia I imagine, to tell. Of course, for articles where there are plentiful english sources along with many foreign ones, that doesn't matter so much. Homestarmy 16:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Does a season fall under "Television show" or "television episode?" --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, a whole season is really just a collection of the episodes, so I think episodes would be the best place for it. One season doesn't represent an entire show all the time, since shows can have multiple seasons. Homestarmy 20:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply. --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we combine {{GA2ndoptalk}} and {{GAonhold}} into an extension of {{GAnominee}}. Its a bit confusing the way it is currently and if this works there will be less templates to be used in this process. Tarret 20:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The 2007 Rugby World Cup starts this weekend. Surely this is a highly inappropriate time to nominate an article which is guaranteed to be unstable for the next month and a half? Do other editors agree that the nomination should be rejected for this reason? --Peter cohen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's definently cutting it way too close time-wise. Homestarmy 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we might have already discussed this here not too long ago,... Dr. Cash 19:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely does not meet the stability requirements. It should be renominated after the event has ended and the information has been updated. I'm sure editors will also be able to find more information and sources to include within the article at its conclusion. --Nehrams2020 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the syntax of FGAN, the optional closing comments field is not working (at least in Firefox on OSX, not that it should make a difference). VanTucky ^(talk) 20:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

done. --Ling.Nut 03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created a new template, {{GA2ndopinion}}, primarily intended to be used by newer or less experienced reviewers that have reviewed an article, but are sort of "sitting on the fence" regarding whether the article meets the GA criteria or not, but may not want to put the article on hold because it probably does meet the criteria. So this would allow them to tag an article on the WP:GAC page requesting that a more experienced reviewer come along and offer his/her second opinion on the matter. Or it could be used on some of the more controversial articles (the 2007 texas longhorn football season article issue might be an example of how this could have been used). It could also be used by experienced reviewers to request a 2nd opinion of a reviewer that might be more knowledgeable on the subject matter. I think this would also strengthen the overall GA program as a whole as well, as hopefully it's use would encourage reviews by more than one person (one of the major criticisms of the GA process) while still preserving the ability of one reviewer to pass some of the more straightforward candidates.

The template would like like this:

1. Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Dr. Cash 06:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

    Second opinion requested — I have partially reviewed this article, but would like to request the opinion of a more experienced reviewer, or a reviewer that is more knowledgeable on the subject matter. Dr. Cash 06:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What do others think of this? Dr. Cash 06:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I like what I see! Drewcifer 07:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Does a category get attached to the article so that they are easy to locate? Graeme Bartlett 08:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not this template, since it's intended to be placed on the WP:GAC page to alert other reviewers in the listing. But this template, {{GA2ndoptalk}}, which could be placed on the talk page of the article, adds the article to the new category, Category:Good article nominees seeking second opinion. Dr. Cash 20:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a good idea (if used sparingly). Good work, Dr. Cash. Sijo Ripa 09:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this would be excellent. It would assist people like myself who are just getting the hang of reviewing articles. Pursey 09:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus, it would lighten the burden on GA/R.--SidiLemine 09:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I love that. Great idea! LARA♥LOVE 15:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. I love it! Davnel03 16:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If there's no objections, and since there seems to be a reasonable consensus already, in around 24 hours, I'll begin using this template if required, since I'm new at reviewing GAC's. Should provide a good testing ground. Pursey 17:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant! Go full speed ahead! -- Reaper X 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how there's pretty much no opposition to this, I've updated the instructions to add usage of this template. I guess we'll try this out for a couple of days or weeks and see how it works. Of course, the template may not only be used by less experienced reviewers; others may use it in other circumstances, such as if they are not quite as familiar with the topic as they originally thought, and want an expert to review it, or if an article might be somewhat controversial. Cheers! Dr. Cash 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've only just seen this (busy RL recently); excellent work, Dr. Cash! I had thought that the request a couple of us made a while back had died a death, but this goes a long way to meeting the need... and without all the extra work entailed in some sort of "new reviewers' induction programme". Good job ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the above article has been on hold since 24th August, after a very perfunctory GA review; the situation really needs looking at by someone more experienced than me ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It definitely needs changes made. I've stricken the the onhold from the page, left a note that it needs an experienced reviewer and updated the backlog template to include it as the first listed article. Thanks for posting this. Good catch. Lara♥ 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Invasive species GA passed on 02 August 2007 but it is not listed at Wikipedia:Good articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done Lara♥ 14:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we add an agriculture section to the GAC page somewhere, I didn't see one and added my nom in the miscellaneous section. IvoShandor 07:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please! see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias where the bias is mentioned: " Wikipedians' areas of expertise and interest tend more towards computer science and popular culture than more specialized areas such as agricultural science or Medieval art." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would hold off on adding this right now. The current list of categories at WP:GAC have been recently updated to match the list of categories on the main WP:GA page. I don't think it's a good idea to just have anyone randomly adding categories without reaching consensus first, or else WP:GAC will get out of synch with WP:GA in another couple of months. For now, it's probably better to add the article under the 'miscellaneous' subheading, and propose a new category on the talk page. Dr. Cash 19:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Exact reason why I brought it up here first. :) IvoShandor 19:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See, Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Proposed_new_GA_category. IvoShandor 19:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Johnfos as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 8th September 2007. Johnfos is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Johnfos
2. Pursey
3. Derek.cashman
4. EyeSerene
5. The Rambling Man.
Epbr123 10:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's great to see so many reviewers getting involved... thanks... Johnfos 10:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done again Johnfos. I need to get back onto it again! The Rambling Man 10:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Pursey at two? You mean the same editor that claimed to have reviewed three music GACs in a partial or full manner three days ago, but hasn't left anything at the talk pages? Before compiling this list Epbr123, actually check if the reviewer has actually reviewed the articles. Pursey doing that with the music articles has been a waste of time, and delayed their respective reviews. LuciferMorgan 13:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• You don't seem to understand the purpose of Template:GAReview. It's for when someone is in the process of reviewing. Pursey has done a good job this week. Epbr123 13:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't lecture me - I understand perfectly. LuciferMorgan 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The reviews are partially complete. I review the article, write a review in Notepad or Word, and then review it again a day later to check if I've missed anything. The reviews are nearly complete and will be done in the next few hours. Thanks for the encouragement, though. *rolls eyes*. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you write one at a time? If you chose to review one at a time, editors wouldn't be wondering what the hell is going on at GAC when some random editor says he is reviewing the article - when, in fact, there's no review to be seen three days later for three articles. LuciferMorgan 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well, now they'll be waiting longer, because now the project is down an editor, and I've returned the article's to the list. Ciao. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the theory I figured you'd be reasonable if I contacted you on your talk page, I was wrong there too. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 14:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

At the beginning of the week, Pursey did a pretty poor review of Madrid, which resulted in me re-reviewing the article, delisting it, and placing it on hold. But rather than biting the newcomers, I made some helpful suggestions on his talk page instead, and I think the quality of some of his reviews has increased considerably this week. He's still a little too dependent on reviewing the references aspect of articles, than other, more subjective things like prose and content (other suggestions on articles would be helpful other than the traditional "article needs more references"). But overall, I see a huge improvement (nomination for 'most improved reviewer'?).

On another note, I was a bit surprised to see myself on the list this week, as I thought my activity at WP:GAC had dropped off a bit. I've been focusing more on re-reviewing articles in the sweeps this week. But maybe this is just evidence that we need more reviewers (so let's not all attack those that are new, let's focus on helping them become better reviewers so that they stay and help decrease the backlog). Dr. Cash 18:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I did stuff up my first review :) Thanks for your comments. I'm still learning, and I'll continue to do so. I imagine I'll get it all right eventually, most of the time, at least :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sparking from the conversation above, which may have cost us a good GAC reviewer (I sure hope not, that would suck), I think we're going to have to break this down into a few questions:

1. Should we suggest how many articles at a time GAC reviewers must take under their care?
2. How long can a reviewer be given to officially review an article?
3. If it is under review for too long, should the article automatically be placed back on the list?
4. Should articles tagged with {{GAReview}} even be removed from the list until a decision about them has been made?

Now I think #1 was the main source of conflict in the above discussion. To weigh in myself, I agree with LuciferMorgan that one article should be reviewed at a time. I was one of the nominators of those "three music GACs in a partial or full [review]" (Billy Talent), and it kinda sucked wondering for a couple days what was going on. I would be constantly be chacking Pursey's GA Review list, becoming increasingly frustrated each time seeing it was still under review but not seeing any notes. Having those three articles under review took away their chance to be reviewed by other editors as well. Pursey, I am in no way questioning your ability to review articles, you're an awesome reviewer. I just believe it would be more effective to review one article at a time. I don't see how it inconveniences you any, you would just be reviewing them at a more steady rate.

#2 and #3 I will be neutral on, and let others debate. But I don't think articles tagged with {{GAReview}} should be removed from the list. If it wasn't for seeing it for the short time it was up, and Pursey's GA Review list, I would have freaked out and wonder what the hell happened.

Now I open this up to you guys, please state your standing on those 4 questions, and lets see if we can get consensus, and if any changes need to be made. -- Reaper X 15:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering the rate at which I was reviewing articles I didn't think 3 was unreasonable. All three were in progress, and I have a set method of doing it. I'll review criteria at a time for the articles I'm reviewing, ie. I'll check the references for all the articles I'm reviewing, then I'll take a break and have a coffee, go do 'real' work, or go to bed. If I am only reviewing one, it just means I only review that piece of criteria for one article. There's a massive backlog at the moment. I could have used a different method and just gone "I'll review this article, and go to bed." but it basically means the backlog isn't going to get dented as much by myself.

I work on the weekends more than I do on the weekdays. So, those articles weren't moving as quickly as the ones I'd done on weekdays. It's now Monday morning in Australia. So I now have five days of no work, since my 'real' job is playing poker, and the city I'm in right now is dead for it on weekdays. I'm at the very least taking a day or two to think about what I want to be doing here on Wikipedia, so I wont be reviewing for that time. If I choose to continue editing, I'll take one article at a time. I'm just seething at the incivil responses I got and the complete contempt for my work. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Number 2. Reviewer should explicitly say how long review or review hold will be. If it is going to take an estimated three days to read and make notes, then say so up front. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any rules in particular. If someone at GAC is wondering why an article is taking a number of days to review, then a short note can be left on the user's talk page. (or the reviewer in question can leave a short note at WP:GAC) CloudNine 15:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't review anymore but one way to solve this conflict is to work on the reviews on wiki, a user sub page, I used to do that sometimes when a review was going to take awhile. Unfortunately not all topics can be given a proper review in just one sitting, thus no time limits should be imposed and this project would be making a mistake if it were to impose more rules, the more rules there are the more likely it is that they will be ignored. IvoShandor 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as #1 is concerned, if the project is trying to recruit more reviewers, imposing rules and attempting to control how they manage their own time is counterproductive. It is one thing an experienced reviewer 'suggesting' something (that's how collaboration works), but I'm concerned about the modality verbs 'should' and 'must'. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My answers, for what they're worth:

1. Should we suggest how many articles at a time GAC reviewers must take under their care?

   No. There have been perhaps two isolated cases of people taking a number of reviews on at any one time, and nothing bad actually happened. The reviews were conducted well and all was good.

2. How long can a reviewer be given to officially review an article?

   Well I feel bad if I haven't finished in a week. That's about the size of it.

3. If it is under review for too long, should the article automatically be placed back on the list?

   No, discussion with the would-be reviewer should be initiated. It's good to talk. If, after that, there's a clear problem, then perhaps relist. But is it that important?

4. Should articles tagged with {{GAReview}} even be removed from the list until a decision about them has been made?

   Why? In almost all cases of the 60 odd recent reviews I've done, only one or two reviews weren't quickly followed up. I then followed up the GAReview templates and removed them after seven days.

I think this is a storm in a teacup. The Rambling Man 15:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I made and had breakfast, and there's alot of response already. Nice. So far, I see that concerning #1, there shouldn't be a limit to the amount of articles at a time that can be reviewed. I like JPS's point "imposing rules and attempting to control how [GAC reviewers] manage their own time is counterproductive."

Pursey has also presented a fair explanation here to his reviewing delays. Please don't be discouraged Pursey, misunderstandings blow up really easy. As for everyone else, good feedback so far, let's keep it coming. -- Reaper X 16:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Personally, I don't think more than 3 should be tagged with GAReview at once. Editors like to tag articles that are of interest to them so that they get to do the review. I'm fine with that as long as they are reviewed in a timely manner.
2. I think there needs to be some sort of contact within 24 hours of being tagged. Even if it's just a note on the talk page that says, "Hi. I'm reviewing this article. Once the review is complete I will post it here," or whatever. I prefer on-going reviews where you list issues as you find them. That way the custodians of the article can begin work while you complete your review. Saves time. I have a subpage for this. GA drafts I think I named it. It's handy. I just provide a link to that.
3. Is this to say that the GAReview tag should be removed? I'd say not before attempting to contact the reviewer.
4. I don't get this question. When are articles tagged with GAReview removed from the list before passing or failing? LaraLove♥ 17:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If I might chip in - I am not a big fan of "reserving" articles for oneself. If you want to review and article, please start doing so whenever you can. But if you cannot review the article at a given time, please leave it for somebody else to do it - perhaps they will be able to do it earlier, easing the queue. The assumption in the GA process is that anybody can review and all reviews are equal, so I even find it slightly improper to prevent somebody from reviewing an article for reasons other than being involved in its creation.

I only use the GAReview tag if I am starting to actively review the article, before I post the review on the talk page (and thus promote or fail the article eventually), to hopefully prevent anybody else from unnecessairly reviewing the article I already started to (and I hope so do others). I have always given my full attention to the article immediately after placing the tag, so a review and "verdict" was at hand in a matter of hours, but I imagine that if I had to take a break, I would post whatever I've found, notify on the talk page that I would get back to reviewing in due course, and left the tag on the list. I find this the proper courseof action.

I must note that I do not usually review longer articles, so perhaps reviewers specializing in those might prefer to review a few articles consecutively, in installments. Then I could see a reason to tag a few articles at a time, but only if one starts to review another after partially finishing reviewing one. No "queueing". PrinceGloria 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cloudnine's comments above. A message on the users talk page is the best way to deal with any queries regarding how long a review is taking. Any rules are just going to deter people from reviewing articles, especially if they fear they will breach some protocol. I also agree with Rambling Man that this is a storm in a tea cup and I would encourage some of those that have been getting upset about this to assume good faith. - Shudde ^talk 00:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is time article listed twice in Physics and Astronomy categories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruslik0 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the golden plates nominee will be quick-failed like I think it should, because no one wants a deluge of "Mormon hating!" and "POV!" thrown at them, and the sources that are present are impressive. Sometimes it isn't what is there, but what isn't. It frankly reads to me like a Mormon lesson on the history of the plates. Don't you think that an article about the golden plates that contains no mention of the idea that many find the idea of them totally implausible, if not outright ridiculous, is a violation of blatant POV? If the Bible article can contain significant criticism, why not the golden plates? VanTucky ^Talk 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read it that way, I'm not sure you understand Mormon doctrine all that well. It is far from a "Mormon lesson on the history of the plates". It covers way more than that. I can think of some criticsm that isn't in there, though, so that should be taken into account. Still I think you're judging it a bit harshly. The assumption thatthis was just written by a bunch of Mormons to tell the "real story" is pretty false, in my view. This is far from a quick-fail. Just put it on hold and express the concern that there isn't enough criticism. Wrad 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I said it was a history lesson, not a theological lesson. Besides, I was speaking of my impression of the POV of the article, not actually comparing it to Mormon doctrine. I was speaking rhetorically. And it does use NPOV language for the most part. But when an article goes into a very very detailed recounting of the story without bothering to stop for some counterpoint and proper context, then it reads like a Mormon history lesson. VanTucky ^Talk 21:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversial articles sometimes do require something special in terms of a thoroughly justified review, typically when they are being failed. If what you describe of the article is accurate, a well-written explanation of your objection should be sufficient. But if nobody wants to touch this one, I could try my hand at it, though that'll have to wait an hour or so probably. Homestarmy 18:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad that the article is relatively NPOV; it deals with its subject in a matter-of-fact way, without commentary, and generally uses phrasing like "the plates were said to have been sealed" (as opposed to "the plates were sealed"). However, I'd also agree with VanTucky that there is no critical appraisal of Smith's claims, and that this should at least be mentioned as it is in similar articles... assuming secondary sources can be found. This is not really a quick-fail issue though, as bar a few MoS problems (eg some of the headings; misplaced ref tags etc) the article looks quite good in other respects. EyeSerene^TALK 21:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to complete the long-overdue review of Lal Masjid siege today, but I am tempted to fail it based upon the fact that the cassus belli of the incident is disputed (most recent revert was today). The rest of the article is pretty good, but this is a core issue which I feel has disrupted the stability of the article. Thoughts? VanTucky ^Talk 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My wiki-time is drawing to a close for the day, and no one has chimed in, so I'll be enacting a fail per the above presently. VanTucky ^Talk 01:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd ask about the History section's backlog. There's many old requests for review in there. So if there's no objection, I'll be taking on three of these. I'm currently in the process of reviewing Expo 67 and I'd like to take on 2 more, since I've pretty much worked out that it doesn't matter whether I'm doing one or three, I complete them all at a reasonable pace. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for this. While it hasn't been up as long as Expo 67, my nom for Cripple Creek has been languishing on the board for a while, as 101 video game and band noms come and go. I would do some GA reviews myself, if I had the time to get comfortable with the criteria. Scartol · Talk 02:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind Pursey, I sorta had my heart set on (read:was just starting to do) Mobutu Sese Seko? VanTucky ^Talk 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, jump in. I've just taken three. All the ones in North and South American History. Mark it up with the GAReview tag and go nuts. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 03:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How dare you! I, dear sir, prefer to go bananas. The nerve of some people... VanTucky ^Talk 03:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I care a lot about your feelings. I retract my statement. ;) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 03:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, gentlemen, or we'll have to bring in mediation. LaraLove 04:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You know Lara, I think you could be breaching this policy. :) You've got to be one of the more amusing Wikipedians :D You know how to make me laugh. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Being dressed as a French maid does not constitute a super hero! I demand you retract that statement. LaraLove 04:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed. Also, pics or it's not true. (Sorry, couldn't resist). I need to go lay down, Wikipedia is making me ill. :D Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having a problem with Mobutu Sese Seko. As part of the preliminary review of the article (I plan on placing it on hold for some minor improvements) I placed a few {{fact}} tags for facts which I thought were likely to be challenged. Twice now, reversions of this action has taken place. I have been called names and had my actions, as well as the GA process in general, treated with incivility and disdain. I am at a loss, and it would seem some editors are having some serious WP:OWN issues. Contesting the requests of a review politely is one thing, but saying a request to directly cite uncited facts "ridiculous"? I would appreciate some support here. VanTucky ^Talk 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The message left on your user talk page from BanyanTree explains that all the facts in the paragraph were cited at the end, which is an entirely fair means of referencing. CloudNine 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like they are using one ref for the whole paragraph. That seems fine to me. Wrad 18:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that the facts are likely to be challenged and are not common knowledge. According the criteria, such facts need direct citations, not general ones. That is what the criteria says. Things such as African etymology and sociological stats need a more clear citation. VanTucky ^Talk18:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There are certainly problems with referencing in the article (eg the "Military coup and consolidation of power" section, amongst others, has none at all - which I've seen other reviewers quick-fail for). Personally I would have posted my GA review before copyediting; I find it eases things along if I raise any issues first in the published review, wait for them to be addressed, and if they aren't then offer to do it myself with the editors' permission. I know it's not very bold, but it keeps everyone happy and keeps the process collaborative. Having said that, if editors genuinely want to achieve GA status for their article, they need to be prepared to accept constructive changes in the spirit in which they are offered!

Re the fact tags you've added, I'm guessing you're after cites for parts of those sentences (like "smallest ethnic group", "warrior connotations", etc). This doesn't seem unreasonable to me - the paragraphs in question are packed with information and it's difficult to know what's covered by the single end-ref. A cite at the end of the paragraph is really the bare minimum required; like you I also like to see additional cites for statements that clearly need them. That's always a judgement call though, and IMO as long as the paragraph is cited the rest is semi-negotiable... which comes back to communication ;) EyeSerene^TALK 20:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice everyone, it seems that for now the issue is resovled. Anyhow, I've placed my review on the talk and the nom on hold. VanTucky ^Talk 23:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering. 65th Infantry Regiment (United States) was listed as GAC on the 29th of August of 2007. On Septmber 8, User:Sumoeagle179 asked for some issues to be taken care of and they were, see: Talk:65th Infantry Regiment (United States)#Issues.

As of today. I haven't heard from User:Sumoeagle179 nor from any other member of the GA committee, so I was wondering what is going on. Thank you all Tony the Marine 02:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If he put that article on hold without updating the template properly, you can just remove the hold, that's a pretty big timeframe to leave an article in the lurch. But if he just gave a comment about the article, he might of just been trying to give some advice without actually giving a review, some people do that on occasion. Another person will hopefully come along eventually and give a review and decision. Homestarmy 02:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have quick-failed the article on Steve Fossett, due to criterion 5 (stability) of the GA criteria. The search for him continues, and he has not been confirmed either dead or alive. Once he is found, whether a live person or a corpse, editing on this article is sure to draw a significant volume of edits. Even looking at the article's current edit history, we can see a lot of recent edits in the past couple of days. So I think it's best to hold off on this, at least until his story gets off the main news media. Dr. Cash 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. LaraLove 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Should Larry Craig be quick-failed as well for more or less the same reason? Given that a lot of the details and actions of the recent controversy are still unfolding, the article is not going to be stable as people rush to add in the facts of the case/resignation. Cheers, CP 19:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 15th September 2007. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Derek.cashman
2. Awadewit
3. Dihydrogen Monoxide
4. Peripitus
5. Noeticsage.
Epbr123 11:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a total of 3 reviews (I think) and came 3rd...wow... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Crazy, I didn't even know they had a GAC reviewer of the week. Is this done every week? -- Noetic Sage 23:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That's totally strange?!?! I seriously thought that I was lagging behind in reviews this past week, and thought that I did more reviews from back when I was at #3 or #5 on the list, or not even on the list at all! Though if you look at the **quality** of my reviews, I still think they're good, decent reviews, plus I have several articles still on hold, and I've been working through the old chemistry articles for the sweeps, so it's like I haven't been doing anything,... ;-)

Still, maybe we still need to get more reviewers involved in the system, particularly more reviewer interested in articles that fall under some of the less-reviewed categories, like the natural sciences? Plus, the backlog has slowly been creeping back up (currently at 173 not reviewed), which is quite high. If we could convince every participant of WikiProject Good Articles to just commit to reviewing the equivalent of one article per day, for the next two weeks, I bet we'd significantly reduce the backlog,... Any takers? Dr. Cash 04:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying for an average of 2 per day this week. So sure :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 08:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm usually doing well to manage two per week (unfortunately I sometimes have to work at work; you'd think they'd be more reasonable :P ). I'll do what I can with the backlog though ;) EyeSerene^TALK 10:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think progress is slowly being made. I've gotten stuck in, and I imagine others have as well. For the first time in a while the count for the day was down on the previous days. Only by one, but at least it's some progress. :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to aim for one a day, but rarely make that. One every two days is good for me though... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm burned out from the last drive, and I'm trying to get into sweeps, but this is something that has occurred to me. We should encourage the editors that list nomination after nomination to take some reviews if they don't already, which I don't think most if any of them do. From looking over WP:GAC/R, I've noticed that there are a couple editors that consistently list multiple articles. The way I see it, if the articles are of GA quality, the nominator obviously understands the criteria and can spot of GA, right? If not, they're nominating articles that don't meet the criteria and are just bogging GAC down. So either way, there's something there to be addressed, in my opinion. LaraLove 12:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I am in a bit of a slo-mo mode generally because of RL stuff, but yeah, the main problem with this, and also T:DYKT is that it comes down to a small number of ppl to inspect everyone else's work, and usually the DYK backlog comes back again during weekends - usually when ppl are away from their computers. Also there is a bit of a problem there where lots of people nominate their articles a lot but don't really help with peer processing and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was going to start doing this anyhow. Perhaps we can get this added to the template(s). Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a Wikiproject logic, shouldn't there be a Logic category for articles? (Whether logic belongs in Mathematics or in Philosophy is a standard religious issue, and makes it hard to know what category I should put a nomination... but nobody can argue with it going under Logic.) Disclaimer: I have no idea how new categories are handled, so I refrained from just trying to add one without checking here first. Nahaj 14:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Some articles about logic are clearly mathematics, some are clearly philosophy. Creating a separate logic category for good articles will lead to a choice between three options instead of two, and I don't think it is a good idea. Geometry guy 20:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)l

You have a point... But if there were a logic category, then articles about logic could go under logic INSTEAD of under philosophy or mathematics. There would be no need to even consider putting them under the other two categories Nahaj 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this would be a useful subsection of this list: I wanted to add a long distance footpath to the list of candidates and eventually parked it under "Recreation, Miscellaneous". It felt more like "Geography" but none of the subdivisions thereof. Is there a procedure for adding subdivisions of headings in the list? PamD 15:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Having seen quite a few new category requests on the talk page recently, I'm not sure if this is exactly the best way to go about it. We want to maintain the best consistency between categories on WP:GA and WP:GAC, so adding a new category is a lot more complex than simply creating the new category by doing a new subsection header at WP:GAC - you also need to synch both pages with the bot(s) that keep tabs on both the GA page as well as the GAC backlog. Rather than having nominators being held up by a necessarily bureaucratic process of creating a new category at GAC, I think it would be much better and more efficient to add these articles under the miscellaneous category instead. WikiProject Good Articles would then keep track of the number of articles in each category at the WP:GA page, and adjust the categories (adding new or merging) on a semi-regular basis. Dr. Cash 20:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Derek.cashman as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 22nd September 2007. Derek.cashman is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Derek.cashman
2. Pursey
3. Noeticsage
4. GreenJoe
5. Canadian Paul.
Epbr123 11:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. Dr Cash must have seriously done a stack of reviews, because I did NINE MILLION(not to scale). Well done Dr Cash :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact now I'm tempted to make sure I nail it next week ;) I keep coming second! And look out, it's my week off :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Two weeks in a row! Thanks! Fortunately, there have been quite a few science & geography articles to take a crack at,... maybe that trend will keep up,... ;-) Dr. Cash 17:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

<irony>Derek, you do realise this isn't about getting some nerdy award don't you?</irony> - good work! The Rambling Man 17:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now there's currently a discussion here on whether or not there should be citations in the lead. I have no personal preference, although the policy as stated when I reviewed Dungeons & Dragons (album) stated that there should be and I pointed that out in the review. The article is currently on hold for a variety of reasons but, I think that those little things will be cleared up in less than a day, which will probably mean that within 24 hours the only one of my unaddressed points will be references in the lead. I personally don't care which way they do it, and the second-to-last thing I'd want to do is have to fail an otherwise good article because of something silly like this. The last thing that I'd want to do, however, is pass a good article that has a clear (in the eyes of more experienced GA reviewers anyhow) MoS violation. So, as a somewhat-neutral editor, although one who would very much like to pass the aforementioned article once my concerns have been addressed, can an article be passed without citations in the lead? Cheers, CP 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had this problem as well when I reviewed articles. The tendency I'm seeing is that references in the lead are a must for Biographies of living persons. But in terms of other topics, references in the lead are not essential provided that the same point is mentioned in the main body with a reference attached. Although if the point in the lead is a quote, a statement, some kind of statistics and figures, or something negative, then a reference should be there. Oidia (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's always seemed to me that references can go in the lead whenever editors feel it is necessary, generally when something controversial is being cited. I don't see what MoS violation that causes. Homestarmy 00:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I just went and had a skim through several Good Articles on a variety of topics. It appears that most of them have references in the lead. So like Homestarmy said, if something is controversial, debatable, or questionable in the lead, then a reference should be there. Oidia (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that you only need references in the lead if there is a controversial statement (or you are referencing a quote) because everything in the lead should already be in the main body of the article, and should be referenced there. So generally I don't think references in the lead are necessary, with the exception of controversial material. I can see the point about biographies of living people though; when in doubt you reference for those. - Shudde ^talk 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't require references in the lead, and it's not something that GAR requires. Quotes would be an exception, but isn't it stated somewhere in the MOS that you should avoid quotes in the lead? Anyway, this has been posted to the Village Pump (Proposals) also. LaraLove 00:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, quick responses, but it's good to know that it's GAR approved to not have references in the lead. I'm assuming, though, that there's nothing wrong if the articles DO happen to have citations in them already? Cheers, CP 01:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There would be no prob with that I don't think. There are articles out there with references in the lead, and sometimes it does avoid arguments. I usually take the view that you can't over reference though ;) - Shudde ^talk 02:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I usually don't reference the leads in my GAC's, but in my most recent one, Long hair, I felt a need to cite everything. Everyone seemed to have an opinion on long hair and challenged everything, even though it was already cited later in the article. Wrad 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with having cites in the lead, necessarily. LaraLove 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Of course the lead should sum the article, and the article should already be sourced. But some things need to be in the lead and not necessaryly in the article (say, genre of a movie), and thus need to be cited there.SidiLemine 11:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)---

The genre of a movie shouldn't be cited. That's easily attainable information; unchallengeable. The genre of a band, however, which is not so easily attainable (surprisingly) should be sourced, but in the infobox rather than the lead. LaraLove 11:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion linked concerns both footnotes and citations (which are not the same thing: footnotes are just one way to cite a source, and they can be used for other parenthetical material). In the lead section, both are permissible, but neither is required, as long as the lead summarizes the article (as it should) and all material requiring citation in the article is cited. Geometry guy 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This review is not acceptable. LuckyLouie has been deeply involved in the article, and is biased regarding the subject, being a member of Wikiproject Rational Skepticism. I would ask that any reviewer of this controversial subject have impeccable credentials of neutrality, and that editors who feel strongly about the paranormal recuse themselves from reviewing. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is nonsense, Martin. You cannot invalidate GA candidate reviewers comments because they are members of WikiProject:Paranormal or Wikiproject:Rational_Skepticism. - LuckyLouie 03:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he can. The purpose of GAC is to have an external editor review the article against criteria, not to have someone who's worked on it extensively do so. This page's header states "Anyone who shows understanding of the criteria and the instructions below can review an article, as long as you are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed" (bold added). LuckyLouie can review the article, but someone else needs to pass/fail it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Martiphi. Not because of the projects he's involved in, but because he's made a considerable amount of edits. Judging by the history, he's made at least 20-30 edits since May. An unbiased reviewer should be found. That said, LuckyLouie is welcome to make comments, give criticisms, and help out with the review. He just shouldn't be the final word on it's nomination, in my opinion. Drewcifer 03:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Did not mean to imply he is unwelcome as an NPOV editor, or that he shouldn't make comments on the article. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made only 14 edits to the article all together. Would I be considered a major contributor? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not up on the rules here, but in addition to editing the article you have made numerous edits to the talk page, been heavily involved in the debates, and have expressed strong views on the article. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not a major contributor to the article itself. I voice my opinions on the talk page but that's about it. Are we looking for someone who has neither edited the article or spent time on the talk page? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We're looking for a neutral and uninvolved party. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Lucky reviewing the article is not kosher. VanTucky ^Talk 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not kosher. Doesn't really matter whether it's about the paranormal or about washing machines. Someone who's edited the article should not promote it. Protects the integrity of the system. A quick look at the article's edit stats shows that Lucky is one of the top five editors of the article. Wrad 23:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is really another issue here, and I hesitate to bring it up because it doesn't seem to have backing in policy. But the article is every bit as controversial as abortion or evolution or gay rights or Scientology whatever. It needs a truly neutral editor. I suggest that this stipulation be added to the rules for a GA reviewer. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet seen any problems arise due to editors reviewing articles in subject areas that they simply have an opinion about, have you? In this particular case, the reviewer clearly has contributed heavily to this article, he doesn't simply have an opinion about the article's subject. Homestarmy 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's pretty easy to tell whether an editor judges the article neutrally by what they say in the review. If there is a problem, it can always be brought up here. I think we need to draw a distinction between a non-neutral editor and a non-neutral review. You can have personal opinions about things and still give an article a fair review. Wrad 00:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as long as there is some recourse. Just your opinion, are there editors who hang out around here who would take an interest and help resolve any disagreements which might arise? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Wrad 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest cases happen now and again at GA/R, and they seem to resolve themselves adequatly. Homestarmy 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My "review" consists of the opinion that the article needs further work and I give specific suggestions for improving it. I do understand that it cannot be counted as an official vote for or against GA status. - LuckyLouie 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it just seemed like you were giving an actual review :/. Is the article still a candidate? If so, I don't think there's much to seriously dispute here. Homestarmy 00:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a judgement call on whether your review reads neutrally Lucky. Editors who have contributed to an article should not review it, period. GA-status is not something to be conferred on one's own work. VanTucky ^Talk 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like things are under control. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time, in the days when WP:GAR was called Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes, this page was known as Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations. Then people decided that using subpages for important processes was a bad idea and the name of this page was changed. Yet almost everything related to this process refers to nominations and nominees, never to candidates. So why is this page now called "Good article candidates" and not Wikipedia:Good article nominations? Well, it nearly was: both options were presented here and after a very little discussion, "candidate" was chosen, apparently for coherence with WP:FAC, though internal consistency was not discussed at all.

I mention this because the inconsistency generates all sorts of errors which waste editors' time. For instance, in {{ArticleHistory}}, the standard terminology for this process is GAN, and an article which fails it has status FGAN. Most of the templates related to this project use an "N" or "nominee/nomination" instead of a "C" or "candidate". It is very confusing; editors sometimes get it wrong; errors are made; time is wasted; people complain; more time is wasted; etc.

Both User:LaraLove and I think it would save time in the long run if the terminology was consistent. There are obviously two ways to do this: use "candidates" everywhere or "nominations" everywhere. I checked out what changes these choices would require and here they are.

Option 1: Candidates

1. Move {{GAnominee}} to {{GACandidate}} leaving a redirect.
2. Reword {{GACandidate}} and change the name of the category into which candidates are placed (see next point).
3. Move Category:Good article nominees to Category:Good article candidates (requires an admin, unless it is a cut and paste.)
4. Move Category:Good article nominees currently on hold to Category:Good article candidates currently on hold and change its category.
5. Fix any links to these cats.
6. Reword {{GAonhold}} and change the name of the category it fills as in point 4.
7. Replace (preferably) all c.200 transclusions of {{GAnominee}} by {{GACandidate}} either using AWB or a bot.
8. Reword WP:GAC to reflect the change of name. (This rewording is the reason it is preferable to replace the transclusions in the previous point.)
9. Do something with Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GA nominees task force.
10. Rename {{PGAN}}, {{FGAN}} and {{GANOH}}.
11. Update {{ArticleHistory}} to use FGAC as well as FGAN, and document the GAC terminology only.

Option 2: Nominations

1. Move this page to Wikipedia:Good article nominations leaving a redirect.  Done
2. Change the title of section 1.  Done
3. Fix the redirects from WP:GAC, WP:GAN etc.  Done

I don't mind doing the work, but option 2 seems a lot easier for everyone. Any thoughts? Preferences? Geometry guy 21:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is needed, and option 2 would be best, but maybe it should be called Wikipedia:Good article nominees as this would be more consistent with the template and categories. Epbr123 22:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I agree with Epbr. T Rex | talk 22:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article nominees works for me. LaraLove 01:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent). Yes. -- Ling.Nut 01:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Option 2 really does make more sense in this case, but if you really want the best consistency, we should change FAC to featured article nominations as well. Good luck on that one! Ha! Ha! ;-) Then again, if it were WP:GAN instead, we'd actually be diverging AWAY from FAC, instead of becoming more like it, so I guess it could be a good thing,... Personally, I don't care what it's called - as long as the link for WP:GAC still gets you there, so people can still find the page. Dr. Cash 04:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So are we planning to keep the GA Review name or should that be changed to Good Article Disputes as well? --Nehrams2020 04:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus at the moment appears to be to change the name to Good article reassessment. As for nominees/nominations, I prefer "nominations" for several reasons: (i) "nominee" is rather fanciful; (ii) "nominee" refers just to the nominated article, whereas "nomination" refers to the whole process; (iii) "nominee" isn't great English anyway, because a nominee is supposed to be a person, not an object. Anyway, it is not a big deal. Geometry guy 10:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I like this 'good article reassessment' idea,... ;-) Dr. Cash 20:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I don't see how it really matters. As for the inconsistency between FAC and GAN, I'd like to repeat what I've said many times before when this has been raised. We are two separate projects and it is more important to have consistency within our own project than to attempt to be consistent with another. Even if our acronyms don't match that of the Featured Article process, I think we'll be okay. LaraLove 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Option 2 looks good to me (and being a pedant I'd have to agree with Gguy re nominee/nomination). When I first joined I was always mixing up GAR with GAC anyway (since at GAC we review articles for Good status... and GAR is a re-review). IMO the name change there is more overdue ;) EyeSerene^TALK 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Option 2 looks good to me as well, but I think Geometry has good points concerning "nominee" vs. "nominations". Homestarmy 21:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The OED definitions for nominations and nominees can be found at User talk:Epbr123#Nominally nomination. As for WP:GAR, the consensus seemed to me to be so overwhelming (the discussion began in August, the !vote a couple of weeks ago) that I went ahead and did the move. It took an hour. The GAC -> GAN move should be easier, although I spotted that there are a few subpages which would need moving too. Meanwhile, I tweaked the GAN wording, as there appears to be a growing consensus here too. Geometry guy 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The move of this page to Wikipedia:Good article nominations appears to be uncontroversial. However, it needs an admin to do it because the target page has had two minor edits since it was created as a redirect. I'm happy to follow up with the subpages and redirects. Geometry guy 20:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nehrams2020 may be willing to do it as GA's newest admin. LaraLove 20:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page to Wikipedia:Good article nominations per request. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I've updated User:StatisticianBot to reflect the page changes. The report pages have been moved too, to match the rest of the page changes, and can now be found at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report or WP:GAN/R, although the old pages persist as redirects, of course. If anyone notices any hiccups due to the page transfer, let me know so that I can fix it. —Daniel Vandersluis^(talk) 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)