Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Caulde (talk | contribs) at 14:05, 15 December 2007 (→‎On hold and second opinion: reply.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts

Hold placed but user has not specified what is to be done

For force, a hold was placed, but the user placing the hold has not specified what needs to be done to remove the hold. Therefore, I ask that this hold be removed. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the page history (see this) and I am suspicious that this particular GA hold has a whiff of WP:POINT. If no-one else has any objections or comments, I'll remove the hold and relist the article at GAN with the original nom date. EyeSereneTALK 21:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EyeSerene here. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've taken another look at the article and think I've unravelled what's gone on: The original nom date was 26th November. On 2nd December Awadewit reviewed and quick-failed it for lacking citations. She added the appropriate fail tag, but this was reverted by ScienceApologist on the 4th, thus restoring the original GA-nom tag and date ([1]). ScienceApologist also reverted Awadewit's removal of the article from the GAN page ([2]) - again restoring the original nom date. However, references were added to the article. Also on the 4th Miraceti placed the article on hold, for reasons I remain suspicious of.
Given the confusion surrounding the various stages, and the apparent intention of ScienceApologist to dispute Awadewit's assessment, I have listed the article at GAR instead. I have also restored Awadewit's GA fail tag on the article talk page. EyeSereneTALK 10:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of concurrent nominations

I was wondering if there should be some sort of informal limit on the number of nominations made by one contributor? GAN gets pretty backlogged and it does make me wonder whether this would help limit the problem. Sorry if this has been discussed before. - Shudde talk 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like the idea - we want to be encourage as many GA(N)s as we can, I'd think. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 09:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with having a limit on active nominations by nominator, but I think it would be nice to encourage those that nominate many articles to also review a couple of articles themselves. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My only problem with it is when someone nominates a significant amount (which is completely subjective) and then does not even review a single one of their own, especially if they've had enough articles of their own reviewed to have at least a decent understanding of the GA process. While I don't think anything can or should be "done" about it, I find it very inconsiderate towards the others who have nominated GAs and don't want to have to wait until two dozen from one person are reviewed before theirs gets reviewed, especially if they're one of the "nominate one, review five" type. We had this discussion earlier and I'll repeat some of what I said there. Nominating a dozen articles at once puts a serious strain on the resources of this project. A review, if done properly, usually takes 30 minutes to an hour, assuming that the article is not quickfailed, whether or not the end result is pass, hold or fail. Take into consideration that many volunteers here spend their considerable talents here reviewing the works of others, and that there is already a giant (200+) backlog despite our best efforts. Throwing a dozen more articles into the mix is not inconsequential. We don't mind reviewing articles and giving comments for improvement (or at least I don't), but asking us to do twelve at once without doing any of your own is a little unreasonable, at least in my mind. Cheers, CP 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you have hit the nail on the head. I don't think it should be necessary to have a limit, but clearly some users are nominating 10+ articles at a time and doing very little by way of reviewing. I know that many people that regularly nominate articles also review others, and that's great, but having a limit of 10 or even 15 doesn't seem to harsh to me. - Shudde talk 02:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you check here, you'll see that one particular user has over nineteen articles nominated. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 00:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a limit is necessary. However, the balance between nominating and reviewing should average an even amount, which is a supportable idea. And of note TonyTheTiger has 23 total at GAN.Mitch32contribs 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also two practical reasons why too many simultaneous requests can be bad. First, if a series of similar articles (all in one area) are nominated, chances are they will have similar problems. If just one model article were nominated first, then the suggestions / comments for it could in large part be used for the others in the series (the first is a model article). Second, if two or more articles are reviewed at the same time and put on hold, it may be too much work to fix them all at the same time. I had something like this happen reviewing Supergirl (Kara Zor-El) - I put it on hold and Batwoman was on hold at the same time from a different reviewer with similar issues. Neither passed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah in my opinion 23 is insane. If we have a backlog here of ~200 articles (quite common), that's over 10% of them. I don't know how many articles Tony has reviewed, but according to User:TonyTheTiger/Reviews#Reviewer Record it's only two. Maybe the statement "When you nominate an article, please consider also choosing another article from the list to review." in the How to nominate an article section should be changed to something more explicit. - Shudde talk 04:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody can write and nominate 10 articles (that are good enough for GA) a month then we should be happy. --Kaypoh (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if everyone nominated 10 articles without reviewing any, then GA would be screwed. - Shudde talk 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23 at once without reviewing any, is way too much. There should perhaps be some limit placed like 10 or 15. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spitting out 23 GA candidates about major topics that has at least a minimum of relevance outside of the topic is indeed worthy of praise. However, in this case we're talking about articles which have almost zero relevance to anyone without a dedicated interest in the subject (in this case primarily little-known American football players). Most of these guys are so obscure that the majority of the articles aren't even past the 10k mark, and that's not even taknig into consideration the heavy use of citation templates. And just look at George Lilja, particularly "Family and faith". I mean, c'mon... "Lilja is not related to Ryan Lilja" and then finishing off with a Bible quote? Surely Tony has been around long enough to know that this doesn't exactly constitute a top-notch contribution
I think Tony should be considerate enough to limit himself to a handful of these articles instead of throwing them all out there at once. It's not like they're going to spoil if he waits a bit longer to have them assessed.
Peter Isotalo 16:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IN MY OWN DEFENSE Hey all. Yes I am the mad GA nominator. I like creating and am getting decent at it. Yes you have chosen the weakest of the 26 articles with my name on them to pick a quality control fight. You don't seem to be picking on me for nominating Tyrone Wheatley, for example, which is also in the queue. Maybe Lilja is a little weak. Not being related to Ryan is a natural interest. In fact, I have seen queries on the web about whether current NFLer Ryan is related to the former NFLer that I am writing about. So if someone were looking up George that would be one thing a reader could be looking for. We have the info. No need to exclude it from the article. As for whether this is one of my best, it is not. Of the 26 listed it may be my worst, which is I am sure why you picked it out. As for my reviewer record. I concede, I do not review very often. I was going to review Walter O'Malley but someone got to it before me. When it got failed, I attempted to clean it up and renominate it. User:Cbl62 and I are cleaning up the {{Michigan Wolverines Football}}. I met him because he added this template to my Greg Skrepenak article which is on the list of overdue GACs. I notice he was working on a lot of interesting stuff, but producing start-class stuff. I know a thing or two about GA articles as you suggest. I have begun to work with him and now he is producing quality stuff. His last two articles hardly need my help (Jamie Morris and Butch Woolfolk). He is coming along and now producing really good stuff for the project. I will try to reveiw something before the weekend, but I will not be reviewing 26 things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilja is not the only one with pretty obvious problems. If you want more examples, particularly of poor handling of prose, see Jim Detwiler, Ted Petoskey and Julius Franks. Repetitions of "In year X" and one-sentence paragraphs are very common. Considering the amount of GAs you have under your belt, I can't seriously believe you need a GAC to be aware that these are problems. And it's not like we're talking urgent core topics either. Out of all these nominations that are actually rated by any project only three of the articles (Al Wistert, Jon Burge and Toni Preckwinkle) are considered to be of mid-importance, but that's only within topics with a really narrow scopes such as Chicago or college football. The Preckwinkle-article was even upheld as a deleted entry as late as September 28 this year. That's not an argument against the article's status as a GA, but it does show that there's been a very real problem establishing this person's notability.
I believe the problem here is demanding far more attention and reviewer resources than these articles properly deserve.
Peter Isotalo 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counting Template:GAstar Elmer Gedeon and Template:GAstar Dick Rifenburg, which have already gone through the process, I imagine at least two thirds of the batch will get promoted. Some of the items in the queue might get rejected today, but likely will be improved a bit before they rise to the top of the queue. Yesterday, I spent a bit of time working on infoboxes and will continue to do so today. I will continue to clean some of these up, but everything on WP is always a work in process. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walker (Star Wars)

Went to review this article and found that it had already been passed by User:Vikrant Phadkay with the following summary:

Good language, content, sourcing and images. GA passed. Vikrant Phadkay 14:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Even a cursory glance at the article makes it obvious that it requires some work (the lead for example), although it would require a full review to decide whether a hold or a fail is appropriate. The question is, since the "reviewer" didn't update the article's class or even update the good article count, should I be bold and revert the pass, or is it more appropriate to take it to WP:GAR, which, given the nature of the article, would likely end up as a full review anyways? Cheers, CP 05:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the formalities; feel free to overturn it, put it on hold, and write your thoughts on the talkpage and we'll see if we can put them to good use. — Deckiller 06:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can boldly delist, if you wish. No need to add to the GAR backlog. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK great. I figured as much, I just didn't want to cause a stir by doing it without at least some general agreement. Will get to reviewing it soon. Cheers, CP 23:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports and recreation section

There is currently 38 articles in this section waiting to be reviewed. To my shock, I notice that one user (TonyTheTiger) has nominated nineteen articles, half of the articles in that section alone! This, in my view is an abuse of the GAN process, and putting an enormous strain on the GAN project. Ninetten is a huge number, and I personally believe they should all be removed until the backlog has gone down (or been cleared completely). I wouldn't mnid if someone had four or five on there, but nineteen is just putting a enormous strain on the project. The GAN report clearly shows he is abusing the process. Davnel03 18:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, we're having a more general discussion about this two threads up and your opinions on the matter as a whole would be welcome there. Cheers, CP 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an idea that truly blows goat chunks.. {{GAReview}} templates!

Hi, sorry for the strong subject heading, but I stand by its content. The purpose of these is to avoid more than one person reviewing an article, I guess..? That idea sucks. Let's not pull our punches here. Why? Because:

  1. Main reason: No one WP:OWNs a review, just like no one WP:OWNs a page. I don't care what you think. I don't care what you believe or say. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and that trumps any template.
  2. Two sets of eyes are far better than one! That's esp. true since the biggest knock on GA is the "One reviewer system sucks" spiel... But even aside from that, why do we care if more than one person looks? What, are we concerned about reviewers' pride??
  3. People slap tags and then take some kind of holiday. Not fair. Wrong. bad. Not good.

..but reasons 2 & 3 are actually just irrelevant gravy. The tag is against Wikipedia practice (umm.. policy? I forget if the "anyone can edit" bit is policy, but it is certainly accepted as a foundational element of Wikipedia).

I suggest deleting this template.

'Nuff said! Ling.Nut (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The point is not that someone gets to pick an article they want to review (or own it as you say). It's to avoid multiple people reviewing the same article at the same time. When there is a massive backlog, like there normally is, it's pretty inefficient to have articles sit their for ages whilst others get two reviewers. I've actually used the template, and then spent 30mins reviewing an article, and whilst I've been doing this, had someone fail it! Bit of a waste of my time don't you think, and that's what the template is there to avoid. If it does this, then it's a great idea. - Shudde talk 08:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that reduces redundancy and keeps things as efficient as possible is a good thing. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wasted hours reviewing Winston Churchill before I discovered someone else was reviewing it who, apparently, won't put a tag on it. Awadewit | talk 08:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (undent) Hiya y'all. Please think of me as a friend, because I am. :-) However, I sorta expected everyone or almost everyone to disagree. At this moment (unless someone can tell me why WP:CONSENSUS trumps the slogan emblazoned across the main page) I feel willing to TfD (which will fail, as a popularity vote) and then go step-by-step up the arbitration/dispute process. This template is evil because it violates "anyone can edit". It is also simply poor practice because of the other two reasons above.
  • These "editors bumping heads" probs can be avoided by, you know.. this thing called, umm, discussion... Ling.Nut (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS, Awadewit, your hours weren't wasted. Did you post your revview on the article's Talk? BTW, the "one reviewer system" is a foundation that needs to be shaken. It is realy the main flaw with GA (which I happen to support). Ling.Nut (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ecx2) The template itself states "This article is under or has been partially reviewed by...", not "You may not review this article because someone else is." There are no ownership issues here (or if they are, it's not the fault of the template. You state above that ""editors bumping heads" probs can be avoided by, you know.. this thing called, umm, discussion", but that is not realistic: who is going to pick an article off the GAN page without somehow finding out who also is interested in reviewing the article? Further, deleting the template won't reduce the possibility of ownership issues (if these issues really exist). Firsfron of Ronchester 09:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. The template implicitly condones ownership of a review, regardless of whether the language is explicit. GA should make it clear that multiple editors can contribute to a review — and even encourage the practice. having this template is setting an Unwritten Rule to the contrary... Ling.Nut (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS Moreover, perhaps it is the "one reviewer" system that is actually malformed. Perhaps the template is a symptom. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing stopping a second person from reviewing the article, and certainly not the template, which not only doesn't enforce a one-reviewer-per-article, it doesn't even state anything like "only one reviewer allowed". Deleting a template because it states something it doesn't state makes no sense to me, and there's a difference between imply (to suggest) and infer (to guess, surmise, or speculate). One hints at something unsaid, while the other is a conclusion.[3] You've inferred that template condones ownership, but there is no implication of this in the text of the template: it states that the article is under review: no more, no less. Any inference is made by the reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Feel free to provide multiple diffs of counterexamples in which more than one editor examined an article after the template was placed.. and the second editor was welcomed. Otherwise, I'd have to consider your args as being... arguing over the semantics of a template text, rather than discussing real facts on the ground. Ling.Nut (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS As a purely stop-gap measure, prior to a TfD nom which itself is subject to the otcome of this discussion, I have changed the template text: "This article is under or has been partially reviewed by the undersigned editor. However, the input of other reviewers is actively welcomed." Ling.Nut (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, semantically speaking, I can't technically provide counterexamples until examples have been given. Multiple diffs, showing clear ownership by the reviewer? Firsfron of Ronchester 10:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no. Examples in which:
  1. The tag was placed on an article's nom,
  2. One or more other reviewers (who were not contributers to the article) joined in to the review, unrequested, after the tag was placed.
  3. Those reviewers were welcomed by the reviewer who placed the tag. :-) 11:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Those would be counterexamples showing lack of ownership issues. I'm asking you to provide examples of ownership issues arising from the placement of the tag, in the form of multiple diffs, since you brought the issue to the attention of this discussion page. Traditionally, counter-examples come after examples. So far, I haven't seen any diffs showing ownership issues arising from the template, and am asking for them. I can't counter them if they haven't been made. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) New related thread at the Village Pump. Ling.Nut (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor point: WP:OWN applies to main space edits, not talk page edits (which are signed), and "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is also referring to mainspace (even there, there are protected pages). However, I agree that the {{GAReview}} template should not stop other editors from reviewing the article, and a change in the wording to emphasise this might be helpful. I notice Ling has made a change along these lines. Geometry guy 11:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're kinda blowing smoke here folks. Let's see explicit language encouraging multiple reviewers, to counteract the longstanding culture of implicit ownership of an article's review.. Hecky durn, let's say that more than one reviewr is required. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But FAC requires consensus from multiple editors; there are articles I won't take to FAC, and I'd like to have a QA section which is not FAC related and which has absolutely nothing to do with FAC or the already flawed FAC processes. Requiring multiple reviewers to weigh in on GACs takes GA a step closer to a system (FAC) which already has many flaws. I'm still waiting for diffs showing clear ownership issues because of the GAReview template. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Encourage: yes. Require: no. I see your point, but you are approaching the issue from the wrong angle in my view. It is very important that reviewers take responsibility for their actions, and that is a form of ownership. No matter how many reviewers comment on an article, someone has to remove the article from the nominations page and say yay or ney. All comments on the talk page are owned by the people signing them, and that includes reviews, be they single or multiple. It would certainly be great if more articles had multiple reviewers, but with a 200+ backlog, I don't see that happening. Geometry guy 12:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Ummmmm. The tit-for-tat on the diffs things is... I'm at a loss for useful adjectives. I could say i asked you first, but then I'd sound like Peewee Herman... No diffs required for standing practice: One article, one GA reviewer... Both GA and FA have flaws (the biggest at FA is fan-club voting). The biggest flaw at GA is single-reviewer system. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The biggest flaw at GA is that it is too complicated. If it were simpler, then there would be more reviewers, and articles would receive multiple reviews. I'd like to see a system in which consensus on an article's status is reached by multiple reviewers assessing the article in series (rather than in parallel, as is the case at FAC). That requires the listing and delisting of articles to be easy. Geometry guy 12:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
# The template still has to go.
# Too complicated, how? Get rid of WP:GAR as was suggested earlier? That idea sucks, for reasons i gave at this forum. Get rid of the many steps required for a review? the steps are there for a reason, or at least, many of them are... Ling.Nut (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big backlog. The template and "one reviewer" system is the best way to fight backlog. If we take away the template and there is more than one reviewer, the backlog will grow faster and articles will take a long time to get a review. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be a backlog, and the "one reviewer" system will always be malformed. Choose your poison. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! D'oh! No diffs needed 'cause this thread supplies examples of "one article one reviewer" as an iron (unwritten) law.. see others' comments about long reviews that were not posted... Ling.Nut (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point posting a second review that says the same thing as the first. People don't like to simply repeat the work of others, it's redundant to have two people say the same thing. If the two reviews disagreed, that would be a different story, but in that case GAR would be the best option. - Shudde talk 19:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to be a storm-in-a-teacup based on a misreading of what GA is for. The template itself is nothing more than a quick, convenient method of communicating with the project. It notifies anyone who cares to look (including the article nominator) that they should expect a review to appear shortly, and it lets other potential reviewers know that the article is being attended to. It's simple, it works, and it reduces wasted effort. This is not FA; GA merely attempts to ensure that articles are of an acceptable minimum standard for the encylopedia, which one person who understands the criteria can do as well as two or more. I really can't see what the problem is. EyeSereneTALK 13:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template serves its purpose. Wryspy (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It’s unfortunate that this has been brought up in such an immature manner; use of bold text, phrasing of “blows goat chunks” and “sucks” and explicitly expressing rejection of the opinions of others are in no way appropriate for engaging the community in a legitimate and civil discussion.

  • 1. Asserting violation of WP:OWN is a mischaracterization of the spirit and letter of the policy. The policy exists to prevent ownership of an article’s content in-so-far as such ownership would preclude others from altering the content. Save minor corrections they may choose to make, reviewers are, by definition, not touching the article’s content. Tagging a nomination with the template in no way, explicitly or implicitly, precludes or discourages other editors from contributing to the article. The review itself is one editor’s opinion; there is no policy requiring consensus or various input before expressing an opinion on an article’s talk page.
  • 2. Two opinions are indeed better than one. Please be constructive and suggest a system and/or method the GA process should use; if you’re going to criticize something, be prepared to offer a solution. Merely demanding removal of a template does nothing to address this concern.
  • 3. I agree that this behavior is rude and I would support policy requiring that an article be reviewed within x days of being tagged. This is, however, a failing of the editors utilizing the template, not the template itself.

Please consider that no system is perfect. The GA process is not a “one reviewer” system; it’s a “one reviewer at a time” system. Confusing though it may be, there is a reassessment process and no provision excluding renomination. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the template to simply state "I am reviewing this article. If you wish to contribute to the review, please comment on the article talk page.". Hopefully this is both friendly and unambiguous. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{GAReview}} is no more a violation of WP:OWN than {{inuse}}. It's just a courtesy tag, no more. This is not an encyclopedia tag; it only appears on the WP:GAN page, which clearly states: Paste #:{{GAReview}} ~~~~ below the entry; this avoids multiple reviews of the same article. If we overload the {{GAReview}} with all sorts of excruciating disclaimers, the WP:GAN page is just going to be reiterating the same thing down the line. The template was just fine the way it was.—Twigboy (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have some sympathy with Ling, but I agree that "one reviewer at a time" is the essence of the GA approach, and I don't think this is a concept which is fundamentally flawed, as long as it is easy to delist, renominate etc.
Ling's idea apparently hasn't found support, and I agree with Tim's rewording of the template. I actually think Ling targetted the wrong template: {{GA2ndopinion}} is the bad idea from this point of view, because of the implicit suggestion that second opinions are not welcome unless the template has been used! Anyway, I find this template unhelpful for other reasons, so I will start a new thread. Geometry guy 20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 8/12/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 8th December 2007. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Dihydrogen Monoxide
2. Canadian Paul
3. The Rambling Man
4. Derek.cashman
5. Elcobbola.
Epbr123 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! I'm back in the list again! ;-) Congrats DHMO! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too! Yay! And well done to H2O. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*takes a bow* :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a run for your money again later this month when I have my winter break. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on summer break - bring it on! — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er? Uh? Summer break? Dr. Cash (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in Australia it's summer now. I've been off since my birthday (Dec 1), and am off until late January. And thanks Metal Head :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you review an article, put it on hold and fix some of the issues yourself, can you pass the article?

I nominated Glasgow for GA. Somebody put it on hold. I tried to fix some of the issues. The reviewer said that according to the rules, he cannot pass the article if he fixes the issues. What is the rule about this? I know there is an instruction that says "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it", but it means only contributions before the review, not after the review, right? --Kaypoh (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's fine. I mean, I personally hate it when someone at GA or FA gives me a laundry list of minor minor grammar things and then I have to hunt for them all. David Fuchs (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The actual phrasing is "as long as they are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed"; there is an important distinction between what you quoted – this is not in past tense. That being the case, what a reviewer is allowed to do is open to interpretation (not only in terms of tense, but what constitutes a “major contributor”). I think the “spirit of the law” here is that you can’t review articles in which you have a personal stake. If the first time you’ve seen the article is for a GA assessment, it’s unlikely that you have a personal interest and/or would be adding enough content through minor detail corrections to be a “major contributor”. The strict interpretation that reviewers can’t touch the articles, however, is also a technically valid point (although, I would argue, not exactly common sense). Ultimately, the reviewer you get will not act “according to the rules”, but “according to their interpretation of the rules”. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 14:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There's nothing wrong with fixing an article as you're reviewing, since you're only making the changes you'd be recommending as part of a 'hold'. However, if the reviewer's made major changes - adding whole new sections etc (rather than just copyediting) - I'd say they should then withdraw from further review of that article. EyeSereneTALK 14:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post your answer on Talk:Glasgow? --Kaypoh (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer (to the original question): yes, you can edit an article while reviewing it, and then pass it.
Before the long answer, a minor request: could people please provide links when quoting guidelines (NB. they are guidelines not instructions or rules)?
Long answer. The text at WP:GAN uses both tenses: WP:GAN#Good article nominations reads "anyone who understands the criteria and the instructions below can review a nominated article, as long as they are not a major contributor to the article being reviewed." However, this is an overview of the GAN process, and the present tense is referring to the moment of deciding to review an article. The more detailed guidelines at WP:GAN#How to review an article state "you cannot review an article if you have made significant contributions to it". Here the past (perfect) tense is use. Notice also that it does not say "you cannot pass an article if you have made significant contributions to it". Again the sense is that you should not have contributed significantly to the article before reviewing it.
I am strongly in favour of encouraging reviewers to fix problems with articles, even to the extent of making significant contributions, such as finding sources or providing a thorough copyedit: the goal is to ensure all GAs meet the criteria. (I do, however, agree with EyeSerene that if a reviewer makes a major contribution, in the sense of adding substantial new material, then another reviewer is probably needed.) I would therefore support clarifying the wording of the two quoted phrases so that the interpretation I have indicated is completely transparent.
And you can quote me on that ;-) Geometry guy 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wording in the guidelines should be explicit on this point. I agree with the position. It does seem odd and a waste of every one's time not to do the actual copy edit, if need be, rather than being coy about it. What about getting into an actual collaboration with the pre-review contributing editor. I have only reviewed a couple of articles but each time there is only one contributing editor who is quit keen on a collaboration. In honor of the spirit of a GA reviewer, I've always held off but I think that is wrong. It is in the spirit of Wikipedia to collaborate. I think as long as you make the GA review and place the article on GA Hold, and have stated explicitly what the problems are, then the GA reviewer can enter a collaborative effort. At the end, since the GA reviewer would be marking off the previously stated problems, the GA Reviewer can still pass or fail. What does every one think? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I’m also all for uniform, explicit phrasing indicating that it’s perfectly acceptable – indeed, encouraged – for reviewers to assist with corrections and “minor” additions. I think, however, we need to be careful to ensure that such assistance does not become an expectation. It is, after all, a review process, not a request for copyediting. I could easily see reviewers being snapped at for holding or not passing articles that “they could have fixed themselves”. If a collaborative process is desired, perhaps the Collaboration of the week should come back? (In a different form, that is.) Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Encouraged but not required" is definitely what I have in mind. As for COTW, this has been discussed in a previous thread, but no one had the energy to take it forward. Please (anyone) take it up if you do! Geometry guy 22:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added this explicitly, and rephrased the guidelines so that they read more consistently. Geometry guy 19:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia

Any thoughts? I put the article on hold exactly a week ago now, and I feel a sufficient number of references have been provided (which was the reason for putting on hold), however there are still some issues I need a second-opinion on, like the sports sections lack of sources for example. If you need any other information, don't hesitate to ask. Regards, — Rudget Talk 18:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd AGF and pass it, with a note that the sports section could do with more sourcing (the articles linked too might be able to cover that). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yeah I'm going to pass it now. The sports section has been rewrote and referenced. Good work by all the parties. — Rudget Contributions 13:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On hold and second opinion

Those who know my views will know that I am very much in favour of reviewers giving editors a chance to fix issues with GANs. I am also in favour of multiple editors contributing to a review (even if that is not very realistic when the backlog is so large), as long as one reviewer takes responsibility for the final decision. What I am against, however, is bureaucracy, and I believe that the templates {{GAOnHold}}, {{GAonhold}}, {{GA2ndopinion}} and {{GA2ndoptalk}} are at best marginally useful, and at worst, rampant instruction creep.

At the moment, to put an article on hold, a reviewer has to do three things: add comments to the talk page, replace {{GAnominee}} by {{GAonhold}} on the talk page, and replace (or augment?) {{GAReview}} by {{GAOnHold}} at GAN. Similarly, requesting a second opinion requires three actions: commenting on what the issues of uncertainty are, replacing {{GAnominee}} (or {{GAonhold}}) by {{GA2ndoptalk}} on the talk page, and replacing (or augmenting) {{GAReview}} by {{GA2ndopinion}} at GAN. What is the point of signalling the same action three times? Or, to adopt the paradigm of WP:CREEP, what problem is this intended to solve?

Surely, from the point of view of reviewers, articles are "on hold" as soon as someone adds a {{GAReview}} template to the nomination, and stay that way until the review is complete and the article is listed or failed. From the point of view of nominators, "on hold" is a chance to fix problems, so it suffices for the reviewer to list the problems on the talk page and give the nominator and other editors a time limit. Similarly, if you need a second opinion, why not simply list the issues, and remove the {{GAReview}} template from GAN, so that another reviewer can review the article, using your review as a starting point?

This is not a perfect replacement for the multi-template approach, but it is so much simpler. The "on-hold"/"second opinion" processes are major contributors to the length of this thread. I understand that regular reviewers may enjoy keeping track of articles with this elaborate system of templates, but they add considerably to the list of instructions at GAN, and surely put off other editors becoming new reviewers. Encouraging new reviewers is, in my view, is the only way to solve the ongoing backlog crisis. Geometry guy 21:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second you completely. There are too many steps for no useful benefit. As you say, removing the GA Review template is the equivalent of signaling a second review. And, the GA Hold makes no sense to me. Using the GA Review template with a note if things will be delayed should be satisfactory. Basically, Good Article review is a place where editors ask the question: "Is this any good?" GA reviewers have only three possible replies: "Yup", "Nope", and 'Hey, this is pretty good but you've got to do a bit more. Go for it." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more strongly. Those templates, and sticking to the steps, are what makes reviewing with GA a workable (and thus, enjoyable) system for me. I suspect I am not alone. Without these templates, it would be simply impossible. I'd just have to create new ones. There is a learning curve with any Wikipedia process, this is a given. Currently, GAN is far less bureaucratic than many other processes. If you want to encourage new reviewers, place a big banner at the top of the page or send out a message on the mailing lists. In other words, advertise. But altering the system to make it unfamiliar to even the veteran reviewers isn't going to help things any. VanTucky talk 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do they make it workable? What problem do they solve? If you believe GA is less bureaucratic than many other processes, I suspect you may not have read the thread I mentioned above. Critics have called GA "one of the worst examples of instruction creep on Wikipedia". I would like to counter the critics with a forthright and robust defence, but I find myself unable to do so with a clear conscience at the moment. Geometry guy 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not waste my time pandering to critics of the system who do not care to be constructive (Note that I'm not speaking of you here at all). Those who are willing to sit back and take pot shots at a working article assessment wing without truly engaging in a process of improvement are less than worthless, they are a hindrance. In the mean time, I have articles to review. Taking away the templates and things I need to do so would only hinder that process. For example: the idea of taking away formalized holds. This is a poor idea because it is largely based on the ability of editors to assume that an article is "on hold", or to garner all they need from an informal "the article is on hold" statement from a reviewer. Without a template, which precisely sets the date for the hold period and puts the hold solidly in motion, holds may be easily missed or confused, and reviews will be disrupted by needless quarreling over the mechanics of a hold. As for the instruction creep commentary, anyone who thinks an in-depth process of review and assessment isn't going to need detailed instructions is living in a fantasy. My motto is get over it and get to work. This constant rehashing of the same discussion doesn't build a quality encyclopedia. VanTucky talk 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with VanTucky (talk · contribs) here. In my experience I have found all of the above templates to be quite useful, both when doing GA Reviews myself, and when on the receiving end of a GA Review on an article I had worked on. Cirt (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: all of these templates bar one, were only created in September this year. They are not part of any long-standing tradition, and I'm still completely unconvinced they are worth the effort they cause: three edits each time! They are a solution in search of a problem. The only template that the above arguments support is the talk page on-hold template. If reviewers are not able to articulate to editors of an article that they have a chance to fix it, then, sure, they can have a template to help them, but there is no reason for it to be part of process any more that {{GAList}} is. It is good to see that others agree that the instructions for this process are detailed and complicated. They don't need to be: other similar processes manage with far less complexity. Geometry guy 11:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with removing these templates as well. I think what makes GA so successful at this point is the fact that WP:GAN is a one-stop page that reviewers can go to (a) see all articles seeking review for GA status and (b) communicate various issues on the status of the review to other editors. If these templates were removed, that communication would be seriously stifled, and it would hurt the GA process and actually confuse things more. I don't want to have to click on an article, then click on that article's talk page, just to see if an article has already been reviewed, or if it's on hold, or if someone is asking someone else for additional comments. If people had to do that, then I think it would seriously slow things down, and the backlog could easily be twice what it is now. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk me up as another disagree. WP:CREEP is a supplement to WP:BURO and is, therefore, essentially just elaboration – poorly worded, at that. Hold and Second Opinion templates are optional tools whose use is by no means “legislated”. Their meaning is transparent, their functionality is simple and they have been for me, and, apparently others, of great value. WP:CREEP does not apply here. Further, making three (or two, if you’re efficient) edits is hardly a burden. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree, after reading Derek's part, I couldn't second anything more confidently. — Rudget Contributions 13:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Because everyone was disagreeing with me when I was logged in as Geometry guy, I logged off and logged back in as Ling.Nut in order to jack up the support for my suggestion. ;-) I mostly agree with myself, or in theory at least, that there are too darn many templates. I think the idea of "OnHold" is a good one — it simply feels more cooperative/collaborative than a "Failed ya, better luck tomorrow!" for articles that are NearlyPass... I do dislike the relevant templates, tho... Think about it... logically... why do OnHold articles remain listed on GAN at all?? Does anyone who visits GAN go from thence to any OnHold page to do something with the OnHold article?? Either the article will pass, in which case it will be removed from GAN, or it will fail, in which case it will be removed from GAN.. but while it's OnHold, no one from GAN ever does anything to help them except the editor who put them on Hold.. so why leave it on GAN at all, if no one from GAN ever does anything to OnHold articles??? Just remove it with an edit summay of "On Hold"... I despise the {{GAReview}} template as being un-Wikipedia-like... I suppose {{GA2ndopinion}} could be replaced by picking an existing subpage's TALK page and designate that as the official "2nd opinion requested" talk page. If anyhting has a long tradition on Wikipedia, it's the venerable Talk page... I dunno. Too many steps in the process, tho, as I said when I was logged in a G-guy. I am against reviewers adding any templates at all on GAN, period, end of story. Those should all be TfD'd. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You were logged in as Geometry guy, but then logged in as Ling.Nut? It doesn't say on your userpage that you have an alternate account? Or am I missing something? — Rudget Contributions 14:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about fail

Hopefully this won't come across as sour grapes because I'm really trying to improve my understanding of the Good Article process/criteria and WP:CITE. A while back I nominated Steve Lukather for GA after working on it quite a bit. An editor then failed the article stating lack of references and listing several passages.

I believe this editor actually meant lack of footnotes, not lack of references. My understanding from reading WP:CITE is that footnotes are required for statements that are likely to be challenged but that we are allowed to have general "references" at the bottom of the article. In the case of Lukather, a lot of the text (more to the point, the text that the failing editor pointed out in his comments) is sourced from Lukather's biography which is listed at the bottom of the page. I didn't feel that I should dot footnotes all over the page to this one source for basic facts about the subject.

Also, I sometimes used a single footnote at the end of a paragraph when I took everything in that para from that particular source. Adding to my confusion, I have seen lots of GA's and FA's that have barely any footnotes. I feel like the article failed because the editor wanted more footnotes but that doesn't seem to be a requirement. --Bloodzombie (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick look and one big problem with your footnotes / references is that they are not fully expanded. Imagine if you printed the page, what could you do with a reference note like this? "Steve Lukather Biography" You need to provide the author, the publisher and the ISBN - i.e. standard citation format. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the article is primarily from a single source, then inline citations (e.g. using footnotes) are unneeded except for contentious statements. I agree that you do need to add more information about the source. In particular, is it a reliable source? As it is a website, that is not completely clear. Geometry guy 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bloodzombie - sorry if I wasn't as clear as I could have been in my commentary. I think Wassupwestcoast picked up one of the main points that I should have made clearer (and I thank him for that) - it really is quite hard to verify something when all you have to work with is "Steve Lukather Biography". I understand your point about having a source only at the end of the paragraph, and I probably should have paid more attention to that (I write in a different way, so I missed that, I guess), but there are some paragraphs with no sources at all - I'm sorry, but it wouldn't be fair to pass a GA like that. Again, I apologise for the confusion and hope this clears things up a bit - feel free to ask me for further clarification, I'm only too happy to help. By the way, the internet references in the article should really be formatted in {{cite web}} style or similar - I can help with that. Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sports and recreation section

At the WP:GAC#Sports and recreation section, there are currently 42 up for GA, and this is the only section that has this many articles. Wouldn't it make sense to split this up into two or three smaller sections?--十八 02:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations&oldid=178074644"