Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Unreviewed Good Articles

Greetings,
In this edit GA tag was added to the article. I have just removed it (11 days after that edit). Few days before someone posted a similar issue in my talk page! Is there any way to quickly find out unreviewed good articles or does GA Bot do anything here? Or since generally registered users review articles and add templates can we ask cluebot to undo every anonymous edit which include {{Good article}}--Tito Dutta (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no bot that currently does this. I did mention it to Gimmetrow (talk · contribs) a while ago as his bot does something similar for FA's, and he said that he has not had enough interest to fix the script (see User talk:Gimmetrow#Removing the icon from GA articles that aren't GA articles). You could ask him again. As to finding the articles you can use this tool [1]. It will show articles with the GA icon, but no review. AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Here is another article with Good Article tag: Karishma Kotak --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC) typo correction goof→ good signed: Tito Dutta (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for better content oversight

I'm concerned that our GA review process is too lax when it comes to evaluating the actual content of articles. An article should fail the review if it has significant coverage gaps; however, if the reviewer is unfamiliar with the topic and the full range of scholarship pertaining to it, how can the reviewer know what the gaps are? Frankly, awarding GA status to an article that doesn't provide satisfactory coverage strikes me as one of the chief ways we can damage Wikipedia's credibility.

When an article is nominated for GA review, Point 4 in the process is regularly ignored: notify major contributing editors … [and] relevant WikiProjects for the article. Notifying projects that have bannered the article should be mandatory. If a GA review has occurred without notifying the projects, there should be no requirement for community review before delisting: delisting should be automatic if anyone objects.

Is there any way to make sure that Point 4 in the procedure has been followed and a minimum number of editors have reviewed an article before the GA rating can be given? Cynwolfe (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Some WikiProject notifications would be pointless though. The US Roads WikiProject is much more active in working on articles related to state highways than any of the state projects or the US project that might also tag articles in their specific areas. I would say that most of the state project members, excluding editors that are also members of WP:USRD would not know what coverage gaps may or may not exist. I'm sure that there are similar situations in other topic areas where you can get the intersection of a topic-based project and a geographic area-based project both adding banners. Imzadi 1979 → 20:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to give a pointless notification to a well run Wikiproject than have exceptions in a rule. It doesn't really do any harm, but probably should be based on rating; if a project has a low rating then it is most likely of peripheral interest. It is a lot of extra work for reviewers though (note, discussion has opened about this issue at WT:GAN). AIRcorn (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 November 2012

Please remove the last sentence at the end of paragraph 1 ("He is a convicted rapist") as this information is already contained within the article and it appears that someone is attempting to use Wikipedia as a tool to act out a vendetta against this person. MarcusB2003 (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the article in question? This is the talk page for the Wikipedia:Good Articles directory, rather than for any one specific article. GRAPPLE X 14:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Good articles/Archive 14. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Are we permitted to remove the transclusion of a GA review from the article's talk page, once it has been completed and added to the article history template? Till 13:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing within the GA process that prevents you from doing so. Once the review finishes it is like any other aspect of talk page management (i.e. if another editor disagrees with you then it will come down to a discussion, you can not claim that GA allows you to). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Archive 4#Transcluding reviews to talk pages for the latest (I think) discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

what is the award for good new article?

what is the award for good new article?

A link to this page should be in the template which lists all awards. Don't know how to add this, nor the award name for new article.

Anybody can help? Spoildead (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know Spoildead (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The question or the wording is too vague, it needs clarifying or posting at the right place. For a start, this page is about is about Good articles but the question is about good new articles, which is not the same thing. Pyrotec (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem with article history of Benjamin Lee Whorf, or Schrödinger's GA

The article history on Talk:Benjamin Lee Whorf is simultaneously listing the article as having passed GA and as having failed. The GA1 review, as far as I can see, shows a fail, yet presumably it was listed for a reason. Maybe someone who knows more about how these listings work could take a look. Presumably when someone does look, the article will collapse into a GA or non-GA state. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. The problem was the the first GAN (/GA1) was a "fail" and the second one (/GA2) was a "pass", but when the the second reviewer passed the nomination by changing the template he reset the page number to 1, so when the bot updated the{{articlehistory}} it showed two reviews: both /GA1 on the same date, 2 July 2012, one of which failed and one of which passed. Pyrotec (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Simon Burchell (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Reviewed by any registered user ???

When the Good article criteria vaguely states the requirements and leaves many things on the reviewer, is it really a good idea to let any registered user review a GA nomination? Can any user properly judge the "factual accuracy" and "broad coverage" points?
(Has this point been already discussed in past? Please direct me to that past discussion to avoid repetition.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to assume they can, and to pay attention to and guide new reviewers through the process. The process is backlogged enough as it is, it probably isn't a good idea to try and discourage any more reviewers. —Ed!^(talk) 00:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I know it has been discussed before, probably at WT:GAN, but I couldn't quickly find an example of the discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge Mathematics into Natural sciences

Wikipedia:Good articles/Mathematics has only 33 articles listed; I think we should merge this into Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences. Thoughts? Adabow (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Serious Issues with a GA review

Im having some issues with a certain review on the article "Ghost in the Shell". Although i CAN agree with the things i cant agree with the subjective issues the reviewer is asking for. It would be great if i could get a less bias review. Please discuss here: Talk:Ghost in the Shell/GA1.Lucia Black (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The current discussion is getting borderline uncivil. It would be great if someone intervened.Lucia Black (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, this is really in the wrong place, which is one reason why you're not getting a response. It more properly belongs on WT:GAN, the discussion page for Good Article nominations and their reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Lucia Black (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Problems with criteria and review procedure

Shouldn't the fact that a fake can reach a "good article" status (see PC-World, Yahoo News Daily Dot) be of some concern and maybe a reason to rethink the criteria and procedure for "good articles"?

I find it in particular concerning, that the criteria doesn't explicitly require reviewers to at least partially check the actual correctness of the content by either alternative sources, personal domain knowledge or by verifying the given sources (existence & content). I'm aware that a full verification of the given sources is can be extremely tedious and may pose severe logistical problems (access), but I think we should require either at least a partial verification of the sources or a (partial) verification of the content by other means (domain knowledge, alternative sources).

Currently we simply seem to assess whether an article "looks good" rather tha assessing whether it "is good".--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers are required to at least check some of the sources. AIRcorn (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the criteria doesn't state that explicitly and for that case in the news the reviewer apparently did not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Criteria 2 specifically says that the article must be factually accurate. You can't pass that one without checking at least some of the sources. The trouble is that Good articles rely only on a single reviewer and the standards vary greatly. I can't access the review (there is no Talk:Bicholim conflict/GA1 page so it must have been just a pass using the talk page). The news articles say that it was passed in 2007 and the standards were not as strictly enforced back then. It is even possible that it was passed by a sockpuppet, if you are going to go the lengths suggested from the news articles it is only a small step to pass the article yourself (it still happens now occasionally). There were reassessment sweeps conducted that should have looked at these older Good Articles, so I would be interested to see if this one was apart of that process. Unfortunately this is all speculation as the talk page has been deleted, and that is the only way to find this information out. I asked Bushranger for access to the talk page as I am curiuos how this happened too. AIRcorn (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

yes it states that, but when detailing how to assess that (a, b, c) it only resorts to checking whether it "looks" accurate. I.e. does it have inline citations? Do they follow the manual of style? etc. But it nowhere states (explicitly) that people should verify the content of those sources (rather than just existence and format). And I agree having only a single reviewer involved is problematc as well, maybe there should at least be two independent reviwers.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The details of how to conduct the review are given in Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, where it states:

"At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)." (bolding in original)

The criteria page is more a list of minimum expectations than a how to guide (for example it says it should be well written, but doesn't say you have to read the article). There may be a case to strengthen up the wording some. What about changing point 3 to "the content accurately represents the sources and it contains no original research"

The more than one reviewer has been brought up before, but is usually rejected for practical reasons as we struggle to keep up with reviews in the current format. You are welcome to try again (I would recomend conducting a rfc and using the WT:GAN pafe as it is more trafficked). AIRcorn (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Look at how well this would have worked here: Oxford University Press is reliable. Not a blog. The sources I can access support the content. No plagiarism I can see. Pass. Andreas JN466 15:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point. Imho we should explicitly require the reviewer to

• a) access and check at least some of the sources

or if no meaningful percentage of the sources is accessible to him

• b) confirm the most important content of the article via alternative sources

But if a reviewer cannot do a) or b) he should cancel the review and leave it to another reviewer with access to the required sources and if none of the reviewers has access to the required sources the article simply cannot achieve the good article status.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what possible relevance these suggested changes have to a fake article that appears to have been created back in July 2007 and later awarded GA-status in October 2007. All the articles awarded GA-status prior to 26 August 2007 were listed for Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps (see list) and re-reviewed, but it took three-years to do it; and that effort is very unlikely to be repeated. Someone obviously created the article and nominated it at WP:GAN, someone (the name is known) awarded it GA-status and later in November 2007 it was nominated at WP:FAC by a named editor, but it failed to become a FA (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bicholim conflict/archive1). These changes appear to be demanded to address an event that happened nearly five and a half years ago. The (unstated) justification for the changes appears to be preventing a reoccurence of this "embarrassment". However, even if these changes were put in place at WP:GAN tomorrow it would do nothing to address any other fake articles in the system that were awarded GA-status, possibly as recently as today (or whenever, or if ever, this change came into being). FAC is consider to be a higher standard than GAN, and whilst the references in Bicholim conflict were considered during that review, the article was not identified as a fake. As far as I am aware there is no required at FAC for the reviewers to have access to all the sources, for them to confirm that the article is compliant with the sources and/or verifiable against alternative sources. These suggested requirements are instruction crepe and as they are not mandatory at FAC, they should not be forced on GAN. Pyrotec (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by that comment. Based on what exact argument would the proposed change not uncover such a fake? Such a fake would clearly fail any content verification by alternative (reputable) sources. Similarly it would fail any content checking of the given sources. I'm also a bit puzzled that more explicit formulation of what presumably expected of reviewers anyway (content verification) is an "instruction creep". Or am I to understand that content verification is not required after all or works in some other mysterious ways that I fail to imagine right now? Also note a) does 'not require the access of all sources, but requires the access (and checking) of at least some and that b) offers an alternative to a).

The point of the whole thing is not to avoid "embarrassments" but to provide readers with a meaningful orientation. Offering readers a good article categorization without really bothering about real content verification is imho not meaningful at all but rather deceiving.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If the instructions came into place (for the sake of argument) tomorrow and they were followed to the letter that would not address the 4,138,032 articles that are currently GAs and some of which might at a later date be exposed in the newspapers as fakes. At most, it can only improve future articles that are awarded GA-status; and since it only requires some sources to be checked it might make no improvement. It appears to be instruction crepe since there is no current requirement for a reviewer to have have access to all sources and/or alternative sources; no requirement for a reviewer to avoid reviewing an nomination if these sources are not personally to hand; and no prohibition on an article becoming a GA if no reviewer at the time has these sources. I did check your contributions, and so far as I can see, you not done a review (but I've not checked in depth) but you make a lot of contributions to the reliable sources pages. So, to clarify: "the letter of the law" is WP:WIAGA: clause 2 Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; [c] and it contains no original research. I do tend to spend several days reviewing nominations and checking every statement, and I probably asked for more references that (arguably) are required according to the "letter of the law". It is also worth pointing out that the review is not certifying the "true" of the article merely that it is Factually accurate and verifiable (strictly that direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged are verifiable). Pyrotec (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In many ways I sympathise with these aims, even when I comment adversely on them here. I've now done over 500 reviews over four years (with a six month gap, that I've not counted) and most of my reviews are long or took days to do. There are reviewers who have been seen to have done six reviews in one hour, with statements such as "I can't find anything wrong", or "Cool, Great, GA". A reviewer who awards GAs on that basis is mostly very popular with the nominators and wikiprojects and is often asked to do more reviews, but sometimes, perhaps too rarely, a nominator refuses to accept the "pass" and demands a proper review. When a article is "undeserving or borderline", such an award is "deceiving", as you say and I agree, but often the "tick in the box" (a GA) is consider to be the end game and "the end is considered to justify the means". However, there are some very competent editors submitting nominations, and some are clearly at WP:FAC level, but in such a case my review is often short and GA is awarded with a suggestion that the article be considered as a possible WP:FACcandidate, there being little else to add. Pyrotec (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I got access to the review and there was no obvious source checking (i.e. no facts were challenged). I don't have any concerns about the reviewer being a sock or any deception on their part. No sweeps were conducted, which I should have worked out as it fell outside the sweep dates by a couple of months.

As to the points brought up by Kmhkmh, the reviewer is already required to do point a and this is covered in the "de facto" how-to-guide. I would not add point b as written, because there should be no alternative to checking sources. Part of this is because there are copyright concerns and if you don't at least compare some of the article to the source you can't determine if this has occurred. As a slightly different take on this we could add to the Step 1 number 3 point in Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles something along the lines of "Conduct an independent search (i.e a Google search) of the topic and use this to assess the articles coverage". This is something that is done by some reviewers already and should pick up any fake articles. Also it is not presented as an alternative to source checking. AIRcorn (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. But it shouldn't be a Google search as you will come across dozens of mirrors of earlier versions of the article. It should at least be a Google News, Google Scholar or Google Books search – and even there we have seen Wikipedia hoaxes enter the literature (see e.g. glucojasinogen or Erica Feldman on the list of hoaxes). Andreas JN466 21:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You can try those but you would hit a brick wall if someone had relied heavily on local or specialist non US sources.©Geni 02:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? There is a lot of foreign-language content there, not just US/English. At any rate, if you can't find anything, Googling the web in general is really no alternative, as you just get stuff copied from Wikipedia. Andreas JN466 18:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That is certainly an improvement. I'm not hung on the point b) as such and I see your point regarding the plagiarism. However b) was meant primarily as an option in the case the reviewer cannot access any of the sources and hence cannot check for plagiarisms anyway.

My issue is with what the current procedure requires as bare minimum (see your own posting further up). Imho that bare minimum is not sufficient as it only requires you to check sources you can access. Polemically speaking this means: If you can access the sources do all the right things, but if you can't access them we don't care. In practice it might be highly likely that many of the article's sources might not be accessible to particular reviewer and hence a meaningful check whether the content is at least halfway factually accurate may not be performed. In such case the article imho cannot get a good article status, unless the reviewer ensures by other mean (for instance what i suggested as b) or personal domain knowledge) that the content is accurate. So I'd prefer to see the bare minimum always requiring a check for factual accuracy and if for some reason that is not possible at all, the review should fail, i.e. a good article status cannot be determined.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think that checking each source, beyond the usual process to verify the content and accuracy of the claims, would never be done. It is outside of the GA process as a whole, and this is most commonly seen in the featured article candidacies process, where the reliability of each source is put at stake. Here, the level of reliability is lower than FAC, and a minimun level should be met to consider a source reliable. Usually, reviewers are entitled to check that sites like BlogSpot or Wordpress are not used as sources; in the case they find those, a replacement should be asked. I consider this to be standard procedure. — ṞṈ 06:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this requires some clarification. Nobody is suggesting that every source needs to be checked, but the issue is with the current (bare minimum) criteria allowing that potentially (almost) no source is checked. Which imho is serious issue as the most basic thing you'd expect from an encyclopedic article is factual accuracy. Currently we are allowing (based on the bare minimum check) "good articles" in doubt to fail this most basic property. Or to put it this way we seem to care for a lot of features of an article but the most important one (factual accuracy).--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the requirement is verifiability not factual accuracy. Wikipedia does not publish primary data/sources, it relies on secondary and tertiary sources, so the requirement is that statements can be verified through citations to reliable sources. That can also lead to dicussions as to whether a particular source can be considered reliable or not. The reliable sources themselves may provide conflicting information, in which case the article should highlight that point. Secondly, the review can be carried out by any editor with a username, so the review is only as good as the reviewer chooses to make it. However, there are checks and balances. If an editor or group of editors considers that an article was awarded GA-status in error, that article can be submitted to Good Article Review and if the article is found to be non-compliant, GA-status can be withdrawn or withdrawn if it is not brought upto standard within a reasonable period of time. As an aside, it is rather unfortunate that the article initiated this discussion sat there for quite a few years before being identified as a "fake". Now the awarding of GA-status to that article can, if someone chooses to do so, be regarded as a "failure" of the GAN process back in 2007, but that particular article may well have appeared within the "scope" of one or more wikiprojects and such projects aught to have the necessary domain experience, so as a philosophical debate why did these (postulated) wikiprojects (if any) allow this article to remain for some five/six years? Leaving the aside, you or anyone else (well they need a username if they review) can initiate WP:GAR, it is used when necessary to correct "faults" in the system. Pyrotec (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No offense while all of this is more or less true, it hasn't really much to do with my point above. This is not about "truth versus verifiabilty", "unreputable versus reputable sources" or intentional misbehaviour of editors. It is also about that mishap from 2007 or similar ones, though depending on their exact circumstance, they may serve as an illustration.

This is about the current guideline potentially allowing articles achieve a good article status without the content's accuracy being checked at all. This the problem that needs to be addressed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I shall not take any offence, but we do seem to have moved from "your humble opinion" (imho) to a de facto statement of fact from you, without any intermediate step. There are "various" problems with the system. Any editor with a username can sign up to do a review, provided that they have not significantly contributed to the article. So yes, a reviewer could pass an article without doing any checks what so ever or even reviewing against the guidelines (and sometimes do). Vandalism also happens but wikipedia as a community deals with it. If a reviewer persistently does reviews of that type and awards GA-status to "undeserving articles", they are likely to be brought up on this page as a discussion topic. Articles that have been miss-awarded GA can be reviewed. The process is vigilance: there is a list of Wikipedia:Good articles/recent and there are watchlists. There are over sixteen thousand GAs on the system and some former GAs have become FAs. The vast majority of the GAs are probably compliant with requirements, but some are probably not. Your proposal is to add words to text (the guidelines) to address a problem that you say exists, but is it a minor problem or an insignificant problem? In some respects a nomination from competent and conciousness editor could be poorly reviewed and awarded GA-status on the basis of that "poor review" but the article can still be compliant, so that is not a "problem of accuracy", but it is one of reviewing. In effect, the "problem of accuracy" only arises as such where both the editors contributing to the article (and some of those will be vandals) and the reviewer don't address the problem of "accurate" adequately. Pyrotec (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you understood my point because this is again a somewhat different discussion. Of course there is no way to avoid completely that a reviewer may not check for accuracy, because people make mistakes, work sloppy or even misbehave. I'm not concerned with that aspect right now. My concern is with our guideline not requiring users to check for accuracy in the first place, i.e. it somewhat pointless to worry about sloppy work by reviewers, if our guideline suggest them to work sloppy to begin with. Let state again the quoted guideline from above, which unfortuately implies that:

"At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary)."

So if a reviewer gets an article with all/most sources being offline and not (directly) accessible to him (which for an average editor is imho fairly common scenario). Then all he might do following the guideline is verifying that there are no blogs or yellow press among the sources and that's it. He will not check a single piece of content for accuracy as he cannot access the sources. This is the problem and it not due a reviewer working sloppy or misbehaving (he's following our minimum requirements to the letter) or something else that might go wrong, but it is directly due to our guideline. Because we are essentially telling him not to bother if he can't access the sources. That's the problem that I'd like to see addressed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. See I "see" now where you are leading. I have some sympathy with that viewpoint. If verification of statements/claims in an article is based on the use of e.g. published books (and only some pages of some books are viewable via Amazon.com/.co.uk/etc or Google books), printed journals/newspapers, or journals/newspapers on subscription-only sites, then the reviewer can't verify these claims without the means of access, so has to take them on trust (assuming Good Faith, to use a well known wikipedia term). Your proposal is that in such a case, that reviewer (perhaps several) should not be doing that review, due to lack of access to sources. That proposal does has some merit. There are counter arguments: one being that someone aught to review nominations and its usually on a "first come basis", not the reviewer "best/most competent"; and, the "rules" are that any reviewer with a username and no Conflict of Interest (COI) can review a nomination. I have reviewed one or two (as a "label") Eastern-European-based "history" articles where the sources were "printed" with Cyrillic script and I certainly can't read Cyrillic scripts. The nominations had been sitting in the queue for the best part of five months, so I reviewed them on the basis that no one else seemed likely do it. I suspect that changing the rules to "any reviewer with a username, no Conflict of Interest and access to the sources can review a nomination, which is really what this is about, is going to be the hard step. The proposal is presented as a change to the guidelines, but in practice it appears to be more of a rule change. Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a Mickey Mouse process though, reviewing an article whose sources you can't read. This is just playing at being an encyclopedia -- a bit like a cargo cult. Andreas JN466 18:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't do Mickey Mouse reviews neither do I play at being an encyclopedia. cargo cult is a start-class article, its no were near a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Well this is not about your reviews, but possible (insufficient) reviews other editors might perform based on the current guideline for reviews. And for the average reader your personally more thorough reviews have little meaning if we cannot not assure that (al)most (all) reviews apply a sufficient standard, because only then the "good article stamp" is meaningful to readers and they will be able to enjoy the "stamp" provided by your reviews.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think one of the issues is with the "those you can access" part of the reviewing guideline at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. What about adding something along side it (or as a footnote even) similar to your point B. Suggestion:

"At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary). If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means. Reviewers can confirm information from sources they cannot access at the resource exchange or request translations at Wikipedia:Translation.

The second to last sentence is new and based off the above suggestion while the last one is moved up and modified from the next bulletpoint on that page (added translations as that is also a problem). Feel free to reword. AIRcorn (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's good suggestion and essentially addressing the problem I've raised.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd add "Beware of on-line sources that have copied content from Wikipedia." after "via alternative means". Otherwise I agree: good suggestion, let's drop it in. Andreas JN466 18:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine. I would link to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks in that sentence somehow too. Are Pyrotec and Hahn happy with this? If so shall we wait for the rfc to end or just do it now? AIRcorn (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy with these latest proposals from Kmhkmh, as amended by Andreas and Aircorn. Pyrotec (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The rfc is already running for a while, so i doubt we will get more feedback, hence if everybody agrees on the change, I think you are good to go to implement it. As far as the rfc is concerned do i have to close that manually since I opened it or is there some automatic procedure?--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Did it for you. You can check the change here. AIRcorn (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The header is seriously broken

There are serious problems with the evaluated expressions in Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary. The entire text of the FL list is being included, rather than just the total number of FLs. This needs the attention of an editor familiar with those templates and evaluations: I don't understand them myself. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is beyond my pay grade so I just ended up deleting the offending text with this edit. Before the list of Featured lists were being displayed as well as the list of Good articles. See this for an example. I am guessing that something changed at the featured list end and we ended up trascluding there page here. I basically deleted all the stats that that mentioned featured lists to put a bandaid on the problem. If someone more technically savvy can look into it and return it to normal that would be great. AIRcorn (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks- a good temporary solution. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone must have fixed it so I undid my edit. Still have no idea what went wrong though. AIRcorn (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

[2] This edit removed the / in the closing "onlyinclude" tag, which affected how {{FL number}} worked. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to categorization in Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society

This concerns "Culture, society and psychology" section. Here is a list of problems I see:

• first, there is a mismatch between the title of this section here and at Wikipedia:GAN#Culture.2C_sociology_and_psychology, where the word sociology is used instead of society.
• as already discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Anthropology.3F, I am proposing to keep the word sociology, add anthropology and either remove culture or change it to cultural studies
• The list as present is composed of 1) Cultural and social studies 2) Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures 3) Cultural symbols and objects 4) Internet culture 5) Organizations, members and cultural events 6) Peoples and cultural groups 7) Psychologists and psychology 8) Sociology. There is a number of problems with that scheme:
  • Regarding "Cultural and social studies". Social studies is a poorly defined, rarely used term that is hardly helpful here. If we remove it, we will be left with a somewhat better defined Cultural studies.
  • Regarding "Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures". Uegh. Phenomana is everything, so just delete this. We are left with movements and subcultures. Those are rather different phenomena, and it is clear that the category includes social movements as well as cultural movements. Now, I am not counting more then few movements or subcultures anyway, so I don't think we need a separate section for them - just merge this entire category to "Cultural studies", of which it is a rather clear subcategory. Should be a no brainer.
  • "Cultural symbols and objects". Rename to "Symbols". Because, well, read the article on symbol, but seriously - all symbols are cultural (thus the phrase "cultural symbol" is a pointless pleonasm). Regarding objects, presumably what was meant was cultural objects. As symbols can be material (objects) and immaterial (concepts, actions), and all cultural objects are also cultural symbols (ex. Washington Monument), this can again by covered by symbols.
  • "Organizations, members and cultural events". What, for crying out loud, is a member in this context? Please, just delete this word from this section name. Then please remove cultural from events, because 1) the category is not limited to cultural organizations, at least not according to its current name so 2) why should it exclude sociological or psychological events?
  • "Peoples and cultural groups". Grumble. This is a mess. Because, let me remind you, just two categories above we were dealing with "movements and subcultures". WTF, excuse me, is "cultural group"? Let me tell you: it's another confusing and poorly define buzzword, fortunately it redirects to ethnic group. So a solution is simple: rename this entire category to "ethnic groups" and move on.
  • "Psychologists and psychology". Fair enough, but may I suggest "Psychology and psychologists" instead?
  • "Sociology". Rename to "Sociology and sociologists", for reasons that should be obvious. Or to "Anthropology, anthropologists, sociology and sociologists", so we don't have to create a new (empty?) group for anthropology.

This list will still be problematic, but I hope that my above suggestions at least advance it from a catastrophic mess to something manageable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

These look like good suggestions all. Yes it's a mess presently. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. I don't think any changes to this page (as long as the page name - "Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society" - stays the same) would interfere with the functioning of any other pages. You can even safely move the linked Good articles around within this page. AIRcorn (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this now, I'd also like to merge "Cultural studies" with "Anthropology, anthropologists, sociology and sociologists". There is a lot of overlap anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Article moves

Done. "Caldwell, Lynton K." should be moved from ethnic groups (sic!) to political scientists, but I don't see such a category anywhere. Is it merged with political figures? Can someone move him? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

More. Tory Christman doesn't really belong in the Internet culture, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to see these improvements. With Christman, didn't she come to prominence trying to censor Internet discussion? Don't feel strongly, but Internet culture seems a sensible place. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

GA and DYK?

Are articles allowed to be listed as GANs while they are undergoing a DYK nomination? Till 12:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, happens quite often. DYK reviews can take quite some time, so it's not uncommon to see an article run at DYK after it passes a GA review. GRAPPLE X 15:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Umm, I'd think it is the other way around :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Even better, Frank's Cock became FA before running on DYK, and Hurricane Debbie (1961) may well do so also. Chris857 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But generally an article can go through DYK within a month at most whereas GA seems to take up to 6 months to get a review!. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sort albums

The albums section of the GAs should be sorted into the year of release as done to the Songs section. It is very uncomfortable and cumbersome to navigate through in its current state. Till 14:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I would try and keep the number of articles in each sub-category similar (by using ranges where necessary). AIRcorn (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Made a start, about 200 left to do. I imagine most will be in the pre 1990 section. Have to shoot away for a while so if anyone else has the urge to finish go for it. AIRcorn (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Always put a " (0 articles)" to indicate the end of a list. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more careful. A couple pages got lost, and quite a number of the names got extra spaces inserted. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the albums. However, why are some compilation albums listed under "Video albums"? Is that just a matter of renaming the title for that section? Till 11:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I did it based on categories for the most part so if some had been mis-categorised they may have ended up in the wrong section. I probably made a few mistakes too. Feel free to move them around if they are in the wrong place. AIRcorn (talk)

Splitting up "Works"

I just noticed that "Works" under "Language and Literature" has become a huge category. Perhaps it is time to split it up? We could do something like what is done under "Songs" in "Music" (by date), or we could split it up by poetry/prose/drama. I'm partial to the latter option. Wrad (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories with over 200 articles AIRcorn (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Architecture - 237
• Roads - Northeastern US (341) and Midwest US (229)
• Literature Works - 335
• Music Performers - 374
• Animals - 393
• Tropical cyclones in the Atlantic - 276
• The Simpsons - 290
• Actors - 231
• Films - 428
• German warships -225
• Video games - 413

Looks like we are the victims of our own success! Wrad (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Good article statistics

Hi. You might be interested in User:The ed17/Good articles by wiki text and User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC on quickfail criteria

Opened at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#RFC: New wording of the quickfail criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging a GA

What happens to the talk page of a GA when the article gets merged into another one. Till 02:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing happens to it as it is a record of the review that took place on that original article. However, a GA should not automatically be transfer across in a merger of articles. To give a (hypothetical) example, if a short GA article gets merged into a bigger/longer start class article, does the start class article become a GA, well no it should not since it has not gone through the GAN nomination and assessment process. Pyrotec (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No I mean something like this where the article was merged, but the talk page still classifies the article as a GA Till 11:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Sweet 7 was never submitted to GAN, so it should not be a GA; and looking at it's talkpage is not listed as a GA, its B-class. So that is OK. She's a Mess was submitted and was awarded GA-status, but it no longer exists as a separate article. I'll update its talkpage to show its current status. Pyrotec (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now updated the {{articlehistory}} for She's_a_Mess, so the review page (/GA1), DYK and deletion history can be obtained from the article milestones infobox on Talk:She's a Mess. Nothing further needs to happen. Well, the WP Songs template could be removed from the talkpage and Sweet 7 could be nominated at GAN, if someone wishes to do so. Pyrotec (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you please do the same for Talk:Thank You for the Heartbreak which was also merged? :) Till 00:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, as requested. Pyrotec (talk) 10:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Till 11:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there precedent for contesting a positive GA review ?

Theoretically, a severely POV article can be made a GA by a single, self-selected editor, even though the POV problems have been pointed out very clearly and several editors agree that they exist. E.g. this could be done as part of a stonewalling strategy to protect the article against improvement. If it happens, is there any way to contest this right after the fact? I am concerned because I know from experience that FA and GA versions tend to be used as "last good version" for long-distance reverts, a popular technique in POV pushing. Hans Adler 18:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because I did this a few months ago, as soon as I picked my jaw up off the floor (though in that case it was an article with content gaps that yawned like canyons). See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, which can be undertaken by an individual or placed before the community. Stability is one of the criteria, and if the several editors have been tagging or reverting, the article is unstable. POV issues might also indicate coverage gaps. As far as I'm concerned, nothing we do here at Wikipedia makes us look dumber than promoting articles as "good" when they are no such thing. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it didn't occur to me that there could be a community option for GA reassessment, so I didn't even look there. The article has been stable in recent days, it's just clear that it won't be in the near future as significant aspects are missing and it doesn't look as if they will be welcomed by the current owners. Hans Adler 19:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: the concept of (lack of) "stability" almost only refers to reverting and edit warring. Tagging does not have much to do with stability, its merely an indication of objection(s) being raised and improving/expanding the article is not an issue of "stability". So, just to make it clear, concerned editors helping to improve the article by adding missing informative and/or correcting errors can't be used as "justification" for failing the article on grounds of (lack of) stability, its just part of the "maintenance cycle". Pyrotec (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The article referred to by Hans is this one on circumcision which was passed by me. One of a number of concerns was that it does not mention "male genital mutilation". The issue is that this term is not used in reliable sources. This same editor refers to a document produced by the American Academy of Pediatrics as a " severely biased advocacy document" [3]. So yes the topic is controversial for some. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice attempt to poison the well. Here is what my argument regarding male genital mutilation actually was:

• "No discussion of male circumcision is complete without a comparison with female genital mutilation, especially with female genital mutilation of types Ia and Ib."
• "The more politically correct term male genital mutilation is never used or mentioned even once in the article, although that title redirects to it."

Note the difference between using the term in Wikipedia's voice (unlikely in the next ten years) and mentioning that there is a notable movement advocating it, or at least saying anything about the wider context of conflicting human rights in which the circumcision debate lives. The article tiptoes around some of these issues, but always careful to avoid anything that might make circumcision look like less than a totally rational, beneficial practice that essentially does no harm and carries no risks.

Overall, the article presents a common POV in the US, but this doesn't make it neutral. In Europe, physicians and legal experts see things quite differently. Hans Adler 22:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the AAP document: It says almost exactly the opposite of the corresponding statement by the Royal Dutch Medical Society. Circumcision is a highly polarised topic where one can't simply take some random (or, as I suspect, not so random) MEDRS quality reliable sources and hope to get a neutral article. One has to pick appropriate sources from both camps. Hans Adler 22:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well Hans, unfortunately you did not help your "argument" by starting off this section the way it was started. That whole first paragraph appear to lack any semblance of neutrality, perhaps it was written in anger? To recap on some of the points made about the assessment: the article was nominated at GAN and any user with a username is entitled to review the article provided that the reviewer has not made a significant contribution of the article. The term "self-selected editor" is perhaps accurate, but it did not appear to be intended to read by others in a positive light. And, yes a reviewer can award an article GA status if that reviewer considers it to be compliant with the requirements. Other editors are entitled to express disagreement, and you state state that you and others have done so on the review page, but the reviewer does not have to be bound by them. As stated above, the result of the review can be referred back to WP:GAR and that is what I would like to consider.

Now, fortunately we seem to have a more constructive dialog. The article is currently a GA, and the discussions above does raise some points of polarisation between Europe and the US. I've not read the article nor the review and its not my subject area, so I express no opinion now whether it should or should not be a GA. However, let's look at ways forward. The article can be submitted to WP:GAR for community reassessment, but it stays as a GA until or unless the result is a "delist", but an "undecided result" or a "keep" result is also possible. It might be possible to get some agreed way forward on covering these US/Europe differences and to improved the article without "removing" its GA-status, but the best place for seems to be in the article's talkpage, not the Wikipedia talk:Good articles talkpage. This is the place for raising problems with the nomination and/or the review, but not for addressing the contents of articles. However, if it helps to resolve the difficulties, keep talking here. Pyrotec (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The article's second paragraph states "The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from considering neonatal circumcision as having a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks to viewing it as having no benefit and significant risks. No major medical organization recommends". I am not sure what it is supposed to say or how this is somehow a plug for routine neonatal circ? But yes discussion will continue on the talk page I am sure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations. You found two sentences that are almost neutral. (Not quite though, as the KNMG said that but for pragmatical reasons - avoid driving religious people into illegality - it should be outlawed. Also, importantly, it hides the negative impact on sexuality, as does the entire article. Not one word about the problems of increased friction due to dryness and changed intercourse mechanics. Wikilawyering is going on to keep the topic out of the article completely.) Even if these are the summary of the medical aspects, that doesn't imply that the summarised presentation is similarly (almost) neutral. Hans Adler 00:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not just US/EU differences. There are some deep problems that I am going to address with concrete proposals over the next months. For example, a significant number of the globally 30% of circumcised men were circumcised not by physicians but by traditional circumcisers. In Africa this means according to the WHO: "serious complications and even deaths have been reported from traditional male circumcision carried out on adolescents. [...] traditional providers will continue to be an important source of circumcision for many males in eastern and southern Africa and will not easily be replaced by male circumcision performed in a clinical setting for reasons that are both cultural and linked to health service capacity." [4] Currently, the overall impression from the article is that circumcision is practised almost exclusively by physicians. In reality it's not even clear whether half the circumcisions are carried out by medical staff.

The one thing I really don't want is that after several months of hard work, during an edit war someone reverts to the GA version, claiming that is has been approved as neutral and sufficiently complete. I have seen such practices by POV pushers on other articles. Hans Adler 00:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is this happening here. The correct answer was given in the second sentence of the first reply. Try and work the issues out for yourselves at the talk page first and then go to WP:GAR if that doesn't work. This is the wrong place for this discussion. Note that it is very rare for an article to be delisted due to instability, especially if the person nominating it for delisting is one of the parties involved in its instability. AIRcorn (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I need help to avoid an edit war at Bill Clinton

Please comment at Talk:Bill_Clinton#WP:OVERLINK_.3F or just step in and edit as you see fit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

I've given Delhi Daredevils in 2012 a review, however the nominator hasn't made an edit since 22 January. Is the rule on this to leave it for a week before closing if it doesn't get replied to or something else? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The nominator is not obliged to make any corrections and in some cases nominations are watched by members of relevant WPs and they sometimes assist with corrections. However, in this case the nominator appears to the main editor. Since you are the reviewer, its your decision (and if necessary give the reasons for those decisions). Pyrotec (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

So because he hasn't been on for so long or doesn't respond, I would be entitled to close it within a week? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

User removing content and disputing source in article marked as "good article"

A user removed unflattering content about a community called Bacliff, Texas, saying that the source article for the content was "non-factual" (See this edit)

The article has been marked as a "good article" since 2009. What procedures need to be done if a user is trying to dispute a source being used in the "good article"? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Same as any other article. Discuss on the talk page first, then go to dispute resolution or rfc or some other form of consensus building forum if need be. If either participant feels that the addition or removal of the source impacts the criteria then the article can be reassessed. I would recommend trying to come to an agreement first through discussion though. AIRcorn (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. The user seemed to be relatively inexperienced with Wikipedia and a recent signup and so far had only communicated through edit summaries. Here are the edit summaries. The latest edit summary did not address the things I brought up on her talk page. After the first edit I had created an entry at the RS noticeboard just to ask "hey, is this an Op/Ed" and so far the only response said that it seemed like a standard news article. After the second edit (I have not reverted the second edit) I contacted other experienced Houston-area Wikipedians (three of them, each with talk page messages: User talk:RJN, User talk:Postoak, and User talk:Nsaum75 ), and on the user talk page of the other editor I asked the other editor to please respond with four tildes. I notified the user of all of the steps I have taken: User_talk:Bayshorebabydoll WhisperToMe (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's now shifted to a discussion page: Talk:Bacliff,_Texas#Houston_Press_reply_.232 WhisperToMe (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems you are doing everything right. Hopefully you get some responses at the talk page or at the reliable source notice board. If there is doubt over whether something is an opinion or not it is probably best to just attribute it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocking historic content is not the way to guarantee wikipedia's trustworthiness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.210.186 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Creating "Animated films", separate from "Films" or "Animation"?

Currently, Toy Story, TV special The World of Strawberry Shortcake, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and TMNT (film), among others surely, are listed under the film category (461 articles). There are also features like The Care Bears' Big Wish Movie, Mulan, Treasure Planet, and The Iron Giant in the Animation category (20 articles). Would there be benefit to a third category, of "Animated films"? If not, which of these two categories should animated feature films be listed in? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Animation" is a subcategory along with "Cinema" and "Radio". Animated films and TV shows should be placed in the relevant subcategories "Films" and "Other television series". I'll start going through them now. Adabow (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have taken this action. Five articles remain in "Animation": Adult animation, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom, The Nekci Menij Show, New Cutie Honey. Adult animation is the only one which I feel actually belongs in this category. The others have issues which I cannot decide where to put them:

• My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom is not an article about the TV series as a whole, but a form of response to the show. Does it belong in "Other television series", or under a section in "Culture, society and psychology"?
• The Nekci Menij Show - an animated web show. Do we need to create a new subsection for internet shows?
• New Cutie Honey - made for home video, not shown on TV until later. Straight-to-video films are classified as films, obviously, but this is like a TV series which wasn't made for TV.

Thoughts? Also, should the films section be split into feature-length films and short films?Adabow (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps change "Animation" to "Animation and animators" or something to signify it's now more about the process than the results (TV, movies, web shows, etc.)?

I don't think there's justification just yet for shorts to have their own category. I think theatrical release is important.

I guess MLP fandom could qualify for "Cultural studies".

As per Necki, perhaps even "Websites and the internet", in Computing and engineering? But

Anime deserves its own section, really, for New Cutie Honey and other series like Mobile Suit Gundam SEED. (Anime and telanovelas are the only genres that I can see be split to their own categories.) -- Zanimum (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

GA belonging to different WikiProjects

If an article in its entirety qualifies as GA does this automatically mean that this rating is applied to all the WikiProjects it belongs to? Or can one article have different quality ratings for different WikiProjects? Case in point, the article on Michael Boulding, a former professional footballer, has a GA rating. It belongs to three WikiProjects; Biography, Football and Tennis. The tennis content consist of one paragraph which forms just a tiny part of the article and which, if it were a separate tennis article, would probably be a Stub or a Start rating at best. Yet it shares (in effect piggybacks on) the WikiProject Football GA rating. Is it supposed to work like this? --Wolbo (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is assessed as a whole - so the GA rating applies to all projects, irrelevant of how much is applicable to individual wikiprojects. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's supposed to work like this. It's technically slightly more complicated: any WikiProject could opt-out of GA-class, although I don't believe that any of them actually have done so. Also, the rare A-class assessment might or might not outrank the GA assessment, depending on the WikiProject's preferences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong year entry of singles.

I've noticed that singles which are released in the year proceeding the album release are listed in the single's year of release. An example is that Rihanna's Loud was released in 2010. The singles "Only Girl (In the World)" and "What's My Name?", as well as other non-singles, are listed in 2010 songs. However, the songs from the album which were released as singles in 2011 are in the 2011 section. It says "2011 songs". So technically, "S&M", "California King Bed" etc should be in 2010 songs. As it says songs, not singles. They were primarily for a 2010 released 2010. It just seems strange to spread them over two different year sections.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed redefinition of SI base units

I have listed this article under physics, but seeing as it is about measurement I could see it being more appropriately listed under mathematics. I am undecided, so I listed it at physics—where it was nominated. Feel free to reclassify. Adabow (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

add a major contributor factor?

Sometimes these articles are very close to GA, and although the nominator may have not made major contribution to the article, they take most of the credit of the GA. I was wondering if we could add a parameter or entry that the nominator could enter themselves asking for who contributed the most or who helped the most into getting the article to GA quality.

Or is this better off being a barnstar?Lucia Black (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

My first thought is that it's probably better off being a barnstar. My concern would be that attempting to "officially" list the main contributor(s) to a GA would lead to disputes and hurt feelings. Under the current system, the main contributor can still list the GA on their user page, list themselves as the major contributor, etc. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You also need to keep in mind that there's a potential for the major contributor to equally feel hurt though. They did most of the work yet the "glory" was taken away by someone else. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, any nominator willing to credit someone else in their nomination template should be equally willing to share barnstars, etc. down the road, so I'm not sure what glory is being stolen here. Personally, I would hate to have to assess who "contributed the most" on some articles I've worked on--would I list the top editor by number of edits, by amount of text added, by quality of text added? Should I add one name, or two, or three? I think it's better not to have the GAs be about glory at all but just about nominators and reviewers; people can claim credit or not on their own user pages like always. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Articles in DYK?

Hi, I have opened a Request for Comment here, which may be of interest. I have proposed that newly-promoted Good Articles be allowed to be nominated as a DYK, i.e. to get a hook fact on the main page for a few hours. Comments would be welcome on the RfC.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Good Articles in FA?

I have proposed that a limited number of newly-promoted Good Articles should appear below or within the Featured Article slot, i.e. to get a hook fact on the Main Page for a day. Comments would be welcome in the RfC. Prioryman (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a point - the proposal actually is to get a link and definition (see the mockup).--Gilderien Chat|Contributions 10:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem

I passed Kim Possible (character), but I accidentally edited the nominations page to say that it was on hold earlier. I now know that the bot is supposed to edit the page, but I don't know how to fix my mistake. SL93 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue, since you added what the bot would have added anyway. When you change the article's status to pass or fail at the completion of the review, just make sure to double-check 20-30 minutes later that the entry was successfully removed from the WP:GAN list by the bot. Thanks for reviewing! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been over 2 hours. SL93 (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Bot's not working right; I pinged the owner about it a few hours back, hopefully it'll be alright soon. Wizardman 19:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok. SL93 (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your question above; disregard my comment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm planning on completing more Good Article reviews, but probably just in relation to television series and films. With this review, I was surprised how fast the nominator fixed my concerns. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That'd be terrific. We always seem to have a large backlog of TV in particular. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

GA sourcing

Can a GA have (essentially) two sources? Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive is problematic here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no requirement for a minimum number of sources, though it would probably need a more thorough check than most to be sure "main aspects" are being covered. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

On-going disputes with reviewer

The article International System of Units is currently under review. The editor conducting the review has little Wikipedia experience and has entered into many long and tedious discussions. I have resorted to stopping the discussions and telling him that I plan to get a second opinion of these comments. He has requested that I do this now and tat these issues be resolved before the review continues. How best do I continue? Martinvl (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Am I remembering right that you've opened a sock-puppet investigation into this reviewer and accused her/him of deliberately sabotaging the process? Personally I think the best solution is to simply end this review and get a more experienced reviewer. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I object to a particular reviewer? Martinvl (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That reviewer can still post comments and potentially appeal to WP:GAR, of course, but I see no reason to suffer through a review with someone you can't work comfortably with--especially when it's a suspected sock who's never made an edit to Wikipedia except to review your two nominations. If another brand-new account tries to review your stuff next time around, we'll ask for administrative intervention and make sure you get an experienced reviewer. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What "On-going disputes"? I made observations, judgements and recommendations based on my understanding of the criteria. For a handful of them, largely ones which only neeed a few words of clarification to solve, Martinvl chose to stubbornly refute, with no sound supporting reasoning. In fact, he seemed to intentionally take the discussions around in circles, and laterly treated my comments with contempt. And what's that stuff about a "sock-puppet investigation" and "sabotage"? FishGF (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

On cursory inspection of the linked review, it seems to me that FishGF is applying a very thorough review against the criteria, not making newbie mistakes. GA is meant to be thorough. If FishGF is the subject of any kind of investigation, then he or she must be notified and given the opportunity to respond. Can either @FishGF: or @Martinvl: give specific examples of how the other is derailing the review process? MartinPoulter (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

User:FishGF might appear to be doing a thorough job, but I believe that he is really trying to sabotage the GA request. The background is that over the last 18 months I have been hassled by sock puppets of the banned User:DeFacto. FishGF's offer to review the article when he was a newly-registered editor did not look right. I sensed a very loud WP:QUACK. Check-User was unable to resolve the SPI request, so FishGF continued with the review. He has since failed the review, but I have resubmitted it.

Rather than go through all the areas of dispute, I have described the first one in the review in detail.

• In the section Talk:International System of Units#Well-written?, we had a dispute concerning section International System of Units#Writing unit symbols and the values of quantities. It might be easiest if you follow that particular thread in detail, starting at the bullet-point "The prose in the Writing ...". I think that you will see that his continual demands to refer to "the guidelines" in his suggested text (in italics) detracts from the article.

Other disputes are of a similar nature.Martinvl (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Now Martinvl, if I was trying to "sabotage the GA request", don't you think that I would have done it in a way that didn't waste 5 weeks of my time? I spent days and weeks reading and re-reading that article, trying to follow and understand it and trying to elucidate where I felt that it wasn't telling me everything I needed to know. I explained in detail each point I came across and even offered suggestions to fix it. You did make a lot of changes, and it was coming close to the point where I was going to do the final checks on the sources, looking at the verifiability and absence of original research. However, and for no apparent reason, you seemed reluctant to accept that certain points did need added clarity, and you became inexplicably uncooperative, even hostile. You left me little alternative than to fail the article. Now you seem to be looking for excuses for your own behaviour, characterising the discussions as disputes and even trying to blame me for finding fault. And now producing fantasies that cast me as the baddy in all of this. FishGF (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there MartinPoulter, thanks for the plaudits. I tried to apply the GA criteria conscientiously and comprehensively. On a handfull of points though, points that I thought broke the article, I couldn't get the proposer to cooperate in making the modest changes I thought were required to swing the balance. In the end, it became apparent that the proposer was not willing to commit or cooperate in the fixing of these points, and had in fact become rather belligerent and was going around in circles with his arguments - without offering any explanations for his refusal to accept the few extra words required to provide the necessary clarity. Because of this, I decided to waste no more time on it, and failed it. The result has been a crop of misleading statements, allegations and sour grapes from the proposer. FishGF (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Spectrum of checking

One of the requirements of good articles is that they be verifiable. I feel that this means that all sources on good articles should be checked. "Checked" is an ambiguous term and I do not want to define it, but I did want to check in with others about making the statement "All sources cited in good article candidates should be checked." At the good article level, the "checking" could be some or all of these:

• verification that no links are dead
• verifying that the sources cited (books, articles) exist even if there is no hyperlink
• doing some kind of self-devised review process which the reviewer deems appropriate even if it does not require personally reading all or any of the original source content
• giving an opinion that the sources seem like reliable sources
• giving an opinion that the information asserted on Wikipedia seems likely to have come from the cited sources
• spot checking some cited sources to verify that the statements are being derived from the cited sources, even if the reviewer does not read the entire source work and consider the extracted material in context
• actually finding the source materials and personally verifying that the content in the source material matches what is asserted on Wikipedia

Again, I do not want to propose a definition of "checking" and or set any standards, but I would like to start saying that in the good article process there should be a "check" on the validity of the sources. If ever there were standards, I would propose a significantly lower standard for GA than FA, but again, I do not want to talk about standards at this time.

How do others feel? Is there anyone here who does not feel that sources in GA candidates should not be "checked", whatever that term means? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is worth pursuing further and that the main counter-argument will be burden on the reviewer or futility of spot-checking (though fwiw, I've seen many a FA pass without spot-checking), but want to recommend striking the first bullet per the GACN line on dead refs. I'd be curious to hear why 2b was formulated only with specific conditions in mind instead of with the goal of easy verifiability (consistent with WP's use as a tertiary source, trusted only as much as it is easily verifiable).  czar ♔ 15:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well? verifiable is the context of GA is already defined:

1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
2. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[3] and
3. it contains no original research.

• and that is the criteria that the nomination should be assessed against.

• A set of bullet points, such as:

• verification that no links are dead
• verifying that the sources cited (books, articles) exist even if there is no hyperlink
• doing some kind of self-devised review process which the reviewer deems appropriate even if it does not require personally reading all or any of the original source content
• giving an opinion that the sources seem like reliable sources
• giving an opinion that the information asserted on Wikipedia seems likely to have come from the cited sources
• spot checking some cited sources to verify that the statements are being derived from the cited sources, even if the reviewer does not read the entire source work and consider the extracted material in context
• actually finding the source materials and personally verifying that the content in the source material matches what is asserted on Wikipedia

• is not a set of acceptance criteria, its just a suggested means by which an article might be checked of verifiability (where verifiability appears to have been redefined as "checkable"), in other words they appear to be more like personal acceptance criteria. These are clearly different topics. The requirement is that nominations are to be checked against the requirements, not against personal acceptance criteria. Pyrotec (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I see this now:

Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the sources; this ideal is not often attained. At a bare minimum, check that the sources used are reliable (for example, blogs are not usually reliable sources) and that those you can access support the content of the article (for example, inline citations lead to sources which agree with what the article says) and are not plagiarized (for example, close paraphrasing of source material should only be used where appropriate, with in text attribution if necessary). If you can not access most of the references you should confirm the most important content of the article via alternative means. Reviewers can confirm information from sources they cannot access at the resource exchange or request translations at Wikipedia:Translation. Beware of on-line sources that have copied content from Wikipedia.

This is copied from from here, which is an editing guideline. So I guess the place to edit/discuss is WP:RGA/WT:RGA. Thanks for posting here. I guess we'll go over there now. =) Biosthmors (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

But to be honest, @Bluerasberry:, I think WP:RGA is in line with what you were saying over at WP:ENB. I'm surprised it's that strict, actually. I'm not complaining, though. Biosthmors (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

GA review didn't transclude

I reviewed an exceptional article earlier this morning, passing it here: Talk:Mirror symmetry (string theory)/GA1. My GA review didn't transclude on the talk page. What did I do wrong? --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong. It's just that you passed the article on your first edit of the review page. You added {{GA}} to the talk page before the bot transcluded the review. The bot only transcludes reviews if there is {{GA nominee}} on the talk page and the GA review page has been created. Adabow (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• @Adabow: - Good to know. How do I fix it (bot? manually?) so the GA review is transcluded? --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to "fix"; the review doesn't need to be transcluded, and is often removed after the review is complete. If you want to transclude it though, type {{Talk:Article/GA1}} at the bottom of the talk page. Adabow (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Gun violence

Gun violence was supposedly rated a GA article on January 28, 2011 by USER:Jj98. Is this correct? I don't seem to find any supporting evidence. Please see current bottom of discussion at Talk:Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Off_topic_content. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Gun violence has never been a GA or through the process. Gun violence in the United States, on the other hand, was named a GA waay back in January 2007, before they were put into subpages. The modification you refer to in 2011 was just fixing assessments. Wizardman 23:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Code Hollywood

This discussion may be of interest to those here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Kvinneakt

Perhaps we should move Kvinneakt from the architecture section to the art section? --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Computing/engineering articles in wrong category

Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems and Minneapolis wireless internet network are currently categorized in "Engineering and technology" → "Computing and engineering" → "Computer-related businesspeople". I think we should take these articles out of the "businesspeople" category, but I'm not sure what other category would be the best option. Thoughts? Edge3 (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I moved to Minneapolis wireless internet network to "Websites and the internet", but I'm not sure where to move Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems. Edge3 (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We could just rename "Computer-related businesspeople" to "Computer-related businesses and businesspeople". Adabow (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea! With "businesses" added to the category name, it now makes more sense for us to keep History of Microsoft, Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems, and similar articles in this category. I've implemented the change. Edge3 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Shraddha Kapoor/GA1

Can someone take a look at this. Smauritius is a major editor of the article, nominated it for GA status, reviewed it, and approved it. Is there a speedy removal or what is the process? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It was never nominated at WP:GAN, so its not a GA. The editor appeared to regard it as a WP:GAR and passed it, but this is invalid (conflict of interest, for a start). The article is currently assessed as Start-class: so its a Start class article. Pyrotec (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please could someone finish Talk:Saengerfest/GA1?

Hi, I was in the middle of a GA review, but I'm on wikibreak now/in about two days and can't finish the review before I go. Please could someone finish it off and close it as needed? Thanks and sorry, RainCity471 (whack!) 18:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll do it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It was listed as not being under review. I started a new review (/GA2) to get it back into the system. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Potential targets

20695 GAs (5 GAs per FA) 22760 GAs (GAs+FAs+FLs = 1 in 150 articles)

All the best!

Also hope for more even coverage (more non-Western stuff, more non-films/sports/music stuff). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.242.154 (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A Question About Good Articles

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but here it goes. I noticed that some articles such as Eddy (Ed, Edd n Eddy) and Justin Bieber on Twitter were good articles, but they have since been merged into other articles. I'm curious to know why this happens. I was under the impression that good articles passed the general notability guidelines.

Americanfreedom (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#Beyond the scope says that questions of notability are not handled by the GA process or criteria. Granted, IMO, a non-notable topic shouldn't be an article, let alone a Good Article. Also, a related point is that a notable topic can have its own article, but that doesn't mean it needs to be, or should be, its own article. Does this help? Chris857 (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Thank you! So you're saying the two topics I mentioned were notable but didn't really merit their own articles? I've always thought that anything that passes the GNG would be kept. Go figure. Anyway thanks for your time! Americanfreedom (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

meeting GNG creates the presumption that a topic is notable, but it is merely a "presumption". Other factors come into play like WP:NOT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

New program evaluation of contests released - good articles

Hi everyone. The Program Evaluation and Design team at the Wikimedia Foundation has released a new program evaluation about on-wiki writing contests. Thanks to everyone who shared data, and we hope you'll share with us in the future. You can read the report here:

• Program evaluation: on-wiki writing contests

It reports that on-wiki writing contests are successful at meeting their goal of improving the quality of Wikipedia articles, including good articles. We hope you'll participate and comment on the talk page, too! SarahStierch (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to reverse failures

I failed Forest cobra without realizing that the nominator requested to have extra time to fix the comments, is it possible to reverse the failure or not? Iainstein (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Could I just continue with the review without fixing the talk page, and when it is done update the talk page accordingly? Iainstein (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Simply undoing the edit on the main talk page should suffice; I went ahead and did so. Wizardman 19:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

5-month old GARs

Can someone look at Talk:Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive/GA2 and Talk:Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard/GA2.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library seeks renewal (please comment)

The Wikipedia Library has grown from a collection of donations to paywalled sources into a broad open research portal for our community. New partnerships have been formed, new pilot programs started, new connections made with our library experts and likeminded institutions. We have tried to bring people together in a new sense of purpose and community about the importance of facilitating research in an open and collaborative way. Here's what we've done so far:

• Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of those references between 400-600%
• Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
• New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
• Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
• Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
• Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting

We've proposed a 6 month renewal request to continue and deepen this work and would appreciate your comments, concerns, thoughts, questions, or endorsements.

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2014

In August 2013, Lohan successfully guest-hosted the talk show Chelsea Lately, generating widespread positive reviews and later that year guest starred on the HBO series Eastbound and Down. In 2014, it was announced that would star in the reality series Lindsay on the Oprah Winfrey Network and that Lindsay would premiere on March 9th, 2014 . Lindsay will be Lohan's second work for the Oprah Winfrey Network, following an interview with Oprah on Oprah's Next Chapter on August 18th, 2013. JackSpearsLohan (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done, this should be posted on Talk:Lindsay Lohan instead, I think. Courcelles 19:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Light novels in language and literature

Light novel is a kind of novel. Novels are put in the subsection "Works" in language and literature. However, Maria-sama ga Miteru and Baccano! are both light novels, but the former is under "Comics" and the latter under "Works". I would like opinions on the subject. How is the best way to categorize them? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure what you're referring to. can you point it out?Lucia Black (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature, Maria-sama ga Miteru is under "Comics" subection and Baccano! is under "Works". However, since both are light novel, doesn't should they be put in the same place. I would like to know if light novels should be listed as "Comics" or "Works" (general books). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Since a light novel isn't a comic, it wouldn't make sense to list them under comics. Even though some light novels also have manga adaptations, if the primary topic of the article is the light novel, then I think it has to be listed under works. Calathan (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sub-par review by blocked user

Please see this - I'm not sure what the correct procedure is, but I'm pretty sure this should be re-reviewed. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 10:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

24.112.61.28 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please include what changes you would like to make, preferably in the form "Change X to Y." Adabow (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead length

Opinions are needed on this matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Standard lead paragraph length. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It is now a WP:RfC; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Any objection? Splitting North American and/or European politicians off from world

Hi all-- what does everyone thing of starting to do really high level splitting of the politician biography category, History > World history > Historical figures: politicians. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Length of GAs

Hi, if there is very little info on a subject, could it still be a GA despite having a short article? Thanks, Matty.007 12:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If the notability of the topic is not in doubt and the article covers the information that is available, a short article can attain GA status (of course, the article must meet the other criteria). I have written many short (four or five paragraphs) articles on Singaporean topics, such as Kelvin Tan, Murder of Huang Na, Pathlight School, Xiaxue and Ya Kun Kaya Toast. --Hildanknight (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

So there is no minimum length? An article of 2000 characters could become a GA? Thanks, Matty.007 13:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Matty.007: The articles that I wrote and linked to above have between four thousand to six thousand characters of readable prose. If an article can cover its topic broadly in two thousand characters of readable prose, then the notability of the topic may be in doubt. --Hildanknight (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I remember, quite some time ago, questioning a GA that looked little more than a well-referenced stub. The view was that the article was comprehensive, in that it covered all the known information on the subject, and that its GA status should stand. It seemed strange to me, but there you go... I can't remember the article, but I think it was certainly under 2000 characters prose text. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say that there are some things which are notable, but haven't got much in the way of sources. Take a look at Alex Stuart-Menteth, I have only got four or five sources, but he is notable. Thanks, Matty.007 17:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to the Egg

Hi. Back to the Egg passed as a GA (2nd time around) on 28 March, but the pass still hasn't been acknowledged on the page. The initial fail was due to the review timing out; and I did a complete rewrite when I took over the nomination, so a second review process was a good idea anyway. With this discrepancy between a pass at GAR2 and the lack of a symbol on the actual article page, is it to do with the fact that the failing of the 25 Nov 2013 version still shows on Talk:Back to the Egg – does anyone know? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There are two things that could be the problem. At WP:GA/MU, its entry was followed by a hyphen, not an en dash (fixed. It wouldn't surprise me if the bot is pedantic about that. Less likely was the incomplete talk templates (fix), particularly the lack of "topic" parameter in {{GA}} (this is different from the "subtopic" parameter in the nomination template). The bot should add {{Good article}} to the article shortly. @Hurricanehink:, as you were the reviewer I thought I'd just ping you to let you know what happened here for future reviewing. Adabow (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Adabow – you've given me a couple of useful pointers for the future! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ooh thanks, I didn't now the bot was that pedantic! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change syntax of WP:GA subpages

A question was asked (here) about using a module to automate the article counts on each subpage. There are some ideas to automate the whole subpage, but my suggestion is more modest. For example, WP:Good articles/Natural sciences#Mineralogy has this wikitext:

=====Mineralogy=====
[[Kauri gum]] –
[[Nassak Diamond]] –
[[Vanadinite]] –
<small> (3&nbsp;articles)</small>

That could be changed to something like:

=====Mineralogy=====
{{#invoke:join|ga
|Kauri gum
|Nassak Diamond
|Vanadinite
}}

The above would invoke a module that would generate wikitext equivalent to what is currently used. If a piped link is used, it would be necessary to specify it in full. Also, it would be fine to include square brackets to make a link if wanted. For example, this would work:

=====Mineralogy=====
{{#invoke:join|ga
|[[Kauri gum]]
|[[Nassak Diamond|Eye of the Idol]]
|Vanadinite
}}

Is something like this wanted? Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I should note that the whole-page option has to do in part with the issue that there are divs and parser functions at the top of the page and buried within it. It would avoid the need for individual #invokes in each section. While parsing a whole page is a bit processor-intensive, if you wrap most of the page in individual #invokes you're processing nearly as much total. The problem with the whole-page option is that I'd like it to replicate all the div and parser function coding, but I don't really understand that. For example, WP:GA/NS starts off with a check to see whether you are at WP:GA/NS or somewhere else, and suppresses the header if you're somewhere else, but I really don't know where the page is being called from. It would be instructive to find out more about how these pages reached their final form to be sure what to take into account. Basically though, the issue is whether have multiple invokes and other template calls (or just keep the raw div/parser code) for clarity and flexibility, or whether the format is standard and stable enough to be worth trying to set up from a module. I really don't know myself at this point. Wnt (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

See Module talk:Good Articles for an example with the syntax I'm thinking of]]. Wnt (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who helps update the video games subpage, I have noticed that keeping the totals up to date is a constant battle, and getting people to use the correct dash is an exercise in futility- putting the whole thing in an easy-to-read/edit function, be it subcat level or page level, would definitely by appreciated. The only issue that I know of is that I thought that at one point there was a bot that dealt with some things? Maybe just the total counts? If so, you would need to deal with them; I haven't seen a bot edit in ages, though, so it may have died. --PresN 01:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

GimmeBot used to periodically update the counts and remove new FAs after they were promoted.

One thing we should probably do is ax the en dash and non-breaking space and instead switch to {{hlist}}-based formatting. That will make it more accessible, and it will be easier since the wikicode formatting will look like a simple bulleted list with the asterisks, but the output will be a horizontal list separated by bullets (•). Imzadi 1979 → 01:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

What about the syntax shown at "That could be changed to something like" above? Pretty hard to get simpler than that (although #invoke:join|ga could be replaced with a template if wanted), and the output can be anything wanted, with the count always correct. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have implemented some solution for automatic numbering on plwiki. The initial proposal for counting each leaf section was rejected. They wanted number of articles only in the header of each main section. I reimplemented the solution made one call for template on each section with the contents including all subsections. That was rejected as well, because none of the section was editable, that is there was no [edit] link near to section title. Finally I created module that analyzes the wikicode of the page directly. The syntax is similar to:

== X {{#invoke:Tools|NumberOfArticlesBetween|START X|END}} ==
<!--START X-->
Bla bla bla...
<!--END-->

And this was accepted (maybe it will not be removed). The script successfully counts number of articles which are available between the tags START X and END. And there are still available the most wanted [edit] links in sections at all levels. Paweł Ziemian (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014

Nowayatall (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not doneNo edit request made. Please structure your request in the form "Change X to Y." Adabow (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2014

Taylor Alison Swift 'SLUT' Swifter1 (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Earthquakes

Hello there. There is a section of GA articles named Earthquakes in the Geography and places category, but I think that they would be better placed under Natural sciences. (specifically under Earth Sciences) Should they be recategorized? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2014

114.79.172.124 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Quickfailing unreleased media

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Quickfailing unreleased media czar ♔ 21:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Television

I'm not satisfied with the list's use of copious subsections for shows with as few as three good articles related to them alongside very large subsections; it makes the list feel unclean. I'd prefer if the Television section was organized similarly to Video games. Tezero (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Streets and highways

I just noticed something odd that should be resolved. Streets are being listed under "Places", yet highways are under the regional sections of "Road transport". I would think that streets are a form of road so they'd be listed along with the articles on highways. Imzadi 1979 → 17:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends on the article. We put Denmark Street under "places" because its notability chiefly rests on the businesses along it, and the reputation the area has acquired due to the music industry. The actual physical details of the street are entirely inconsequential. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to create Good Article lists

For a long time I've wondered why lists have been exempt from GA and have to skip the process. While lists generally might not need quite the depth of content that articles have, they often take a great deal of time to research and fully get right, a lot of tweaking and minor editing. The more detailed lists require a great deal of effort to reach FL status and I really think we need somewhere in between which is satisfactory but not quite there. I think it might prove more productive to have such a milestone and then editors can decide whether to "perfect" their lists to FL status. We have a lot of decent lists which should really be good articles even if not featured lists. List of Hammond organs for instance would be fine for a Good Article list, but might not yet scrape FL status. I think it's about time we introduced it as I feel we should be trying to encourage as many editors as possible to go for GA on all articles and lists and many might be deterred with going straight to FLC. Anyway, please don't take this as a strict support-oppose thing, I'd rather see intelligent discussion on why this is or is not a good idea before we go any further.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Mixed feelings. A few years ago I would have been "against" because I did not see how the FLC criteria could be eased to create a new level. But since then (maybe just my personal experience) the reviewers have been more demanding. IMO if we do have GLs perhaps where the main difference would be in the text. The list should be comprehensive, and the referencing precise. But perhaps we do not need a "professional" degree of writing text. And we could have shorter leads, and notes in the Notes columns rather than mini-essays. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the other argument and I can imagine some people would oppose this. As I said on my talk page I think it's worth a shot. It's like with FAC, a lot of editors here would never take an article that far and undergo such vigorous reviews, but are willing at least to get it to GA status. I have a feeling that we're missing out on quite a lot of articles being listed because of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I took the same view as Peter has expressed above when this proposal was floated a few years ago, but unlike him my view hasn't changed in the interim. Sure, FLC is picky, fickle and often arbitrary, but I'd be very much against having a weakened version that allows poorly written text for instance. The essence of GA vs. FA is that the former only requires that the main topics of the subject are covered, whereas the latter has a requirement for comprehensiveness. Translating that to a GAL process would imply that a list could be promoted if it was incomplete, which seems ridiculous to me. How incomplete? Eric Corbett 11:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that the list itself must be technically sound and complete with reasonable quality prose in the columns, but it does not need strong paragraphs of prose putting it in context above it like many FLs require, only a few lines but they must be sourced and decent and of reasonable quality of course. I agree in part though with your outlook and that the scope is far less than GA and FA with lists. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Relaxing the requirement that the lead must provide an adequate summary of the article flies in the face of the existing GA criteria. The only prose requirement mentioned in the FL criteria is that "it features professional standards of writing", which is of course entirely without meaning, and far less than FA's requirement for prose that's "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". And all the same accessibility issues would come up just as they do at FLC anyway, so I really don't see the point. Eric Corbett 12:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

True, OK, you've changed my mind on this! I wasn't aware of an active previous proposal or discussion on it either although I suspected that there would have been opposition to it for the reasons you stated. @Ritchie333: There you have it, I think Eric's explained it well enough! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I took the view that a FLC should have FA quality prose and FA quality sources. Also, remember that FAC and FLC can be a "pile on" (for want of a better phrase), whereas GAN is generally a one-on-one (there are exceptions) that exchanges a lesser quality for a quicker and easier result. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

But the FL criteria don't require FA standards of prose or sourcing. Perhaps they should, who knows, but until they do a good list option doesn't make sense to me. Eric Corbett 13:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, I would have to agree with that (though I suspect that merely be a by-product of the article degrading since the FL review). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Self assessed GA?

Resolved

The article, Charles Calvert (governor) in regards of {{WikiProject Maryland}} is either self assessed GA or it is missing the GA nomination page. Can someone check it? I would've removed GA rating but it is there since 2010.[5] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Pinging Folklore1. Thanks, Matty.007 13:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Oops! You found something I did (wrong) back in 2010. I have corrected my mistake. Thanks for the ping. Folklore1 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Language and literature subcats

Is there a reason other than the sheer tedium involved in making the judgment for ~500 articles that the extremely lengthy "Works" category is not divided into "Fiction" and "Non-fiction"? --erachima talk 13:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me - not that I often work on literature subjects. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The current division is Comics, Everything Else, so if I were to sort it I'd probably actually use Comics, Poetry, Non-Fiction, Novels. --erachima talk 13:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Dacians

the article isnt a good article, so I have it removed, as for Ebla, now I see its not just a site, but also a kingdom and a historic Era, so its place is appropriate--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Subcats from the Works section

Hello to everyone; I agree with the advances made to sub-categorize the "Works" section and have just added a few additional suggested sub-categories. What does everyone think? I got the idea for each section name while re-categorizing the Works section: I simply opened and read the first few sentences of each article in "Works" to get a good idea of what type of literary work each is. As the types began to sort out, the section titles rather wrote themselves.

For the next hour or so I am moving articles from "Works" into the new sections until "Works" is empty. I just agree that it's good to give this place the clean-up it deserves, and I enjoy doing it. Of course feel free to combine these sections or change any of the work I am doing; "evolve" it, if you will! I'll remove the "In use" tag very soon. Cheers to all. Prhartcom (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wait, waitwait. The end goal should not be that "Works" is empty, it should be that we have a category for each major, natural, and recognized subdivision of the corpus, with Works as the miscellaneous section for things that don't fit. --erachima talk 20:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We keep Works. Will you be online for awhile today, erachima? I am nearly finished peering into each article and am nearly ready to show everyone what we actually have here. You can check my work when I do that, i.e. combining categories, etc. Cheers Prhartcom (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC).

Request for third opinion

Regarding criteria 3a (broad coverage) at Talk:Piotr Skarga/GA1. The review there is stalled as me (primary author) and the reviewer cannot reach consensus on whether the article addresses the main aspects of the topic. The reviewer belives that the article does not do so with regards to the aspects of Polish history relevant to this biographical article, whereas I believe it 1) does so, that 2) those aspects are irrelevant there and linking articles such as counter-reformation in Poland is sufficient, and 3) that expanding this article with requested information would divert the reader from the primary subject (biography) into side topics (history of Poland). A third opinion would be appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: GA doesn't have to be comprehensive though and it does seem to have a good basic grasp of the topic. It looks GA worthy to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

bad review by inexperienced editor

An apparent ne'er-do-well started a deficient review. How do we resolve this sort of problem? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you consult @Jimbo Wales:, in a spirit of moral ambitiousness. Eric Corbett 21:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations § PapaJeckloy's problematic reviews

 – Chris Troutman (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Change to summary page

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) added the following text to Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary:

If the article being nominated has an editor who has been its primary contributor, it's a good idea to get them involved in the GA process. Of course, no one owns an article, but the active participation or cooperation of the primary contributor should help to make the GA process less problematic, while failing to do so can lead to hard feelings and make cooperation more difficult.

I think this is a very poor addition and cuts against the grain of a collaborative project. I should note that it arises from a dispute over the structure and context of High Line (New York City), which was nominated for GA status by a third editor. For context please see User_talk:Mackensen#Here.27s_a_tip_for_you..... I reverted the change because I think it's a bad change; BMK later reverted me. That's not how WP:BRD works but whatever. I'd like for persons not involved with the High Line article to consider whether this is a reasonable addition. Best, Mackensen (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The addition is a bit poorly written and should at least be rewritten, and the point Mackensen makes is valid, but so does the point made by Beyond My Ken. Hopefully others will also chime in here, but I must admit that my personal experience is the improvement of a particular article for awhile, followed by a "drive-by" nomination by an editor who had never once improved the article and who apparently wanted the "glory" without regard to who was actively providing improvements. I worked it out with that particular editor, and it involved me giving the editor what they wanted and me swallowing my pride without recognition (at least the article was improved in the process), so you see what I mean. It would be great if there was some sort of guideline on this. Prhartcom (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hanpu not listed here?

According to this, the mentioned article is not listed in any good article subpage (supposingly on Wikipedia:Good articles/History)! Not sure if this was a SERIOUS mistake, but can the article be listed? Someone may check if it is really listed. HYH.124 (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

West Triangle Economic Zone also likely not listed, supposingly on Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society. HYH.124 (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

HYH.124, good observation. On any Good article Talk page, locate the Good article banner and click the word "review" to confirm if the article was really reviewed and if it really passed. In both of these cases, I see that they did pass. The reviewer is then supposed to manually add it to the GA directory appropriate page (I don't think this is automated), a step which can fall through the cracks. Please feel free to help out and add them to their appropriate page yourself. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2014

The Prison Break episode Demi Lovato guest starred in was Season 2 Episode 4 not episode 7 174.125.76.241 (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Good articles. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Stickee (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

delay in GA icon appearing on recently listed article?

Does anyone know if there's been a delay/lag of late with this? A song article that was listed on 14 November – The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord) – still doesn't carry the icon. Soon after the reviewer passed the article, I changed the quality rating myself on the Talk page. Just guessing, but might that be relevant; i.e., is it something that a bot should change? JG66 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The bot tends to miss that part of it. When I pass articles I always just do it myself due to this, so I went and added it. Wizardman 00:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so the icon needs to be added manually … Thanks, Wizardman! JG66 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Paris

A major problem occurred with this article which resulted in it being stripped of its GA status. It degraded so badly since July 2013 that I've largely restored the version that passed, with some refinements (which now need to sorted out) with the intention of getting it to GA again. The problem is the article is a liability. It attracts a whole bunch of shoddy editors and edit wars. I know that articles need to be stable to pass GA but I was wondering if there would be general support for placing a full lock on the article, should we get it to GA status. It's in the best interest of the encyclopedia to produce a stable (and sound) version.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I promoted this article to GA last year and also removed the GA status recently in view of the degradation of the article. For such an important topic Wikipedia needs a stable, well referenced, neutral article, if at all possible, and I reluctantly support the suggestion of protecting this page. I can understand why such protection is necessary for biographies of controversial people, but it is a great pity that Paris should need it, yet I think it does. I am unfamiliar with the degrees of protection available, but some measure of it is, I am afraid, seriously needed. Tim riley talk 10:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Good Article up for Deletion

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that the article was rated "good" and is going to end up a redirect indicates a significant problem in the GA review process, rather than in the AfD process. The article lacks even a single source that is both about the song (the topic of the article), as opposed to its album, and meets WP:V criteria. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:John Broughton, the discussion is at the link specified and here: WT:Good article criteria#Notability missing from GA criteria. Prhartcom (talk) 03:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing featured articles

Is it possible for a bot to run through the subpages of Wikipedia:Good articles, remove the articles that have become featured, and update the respective totals? I found one in passing, and I'd hazard that others are present. Seattle (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Seattle, that's a good idea, although I don't know how feasible it would be. Consider bringing it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), where your suggestion should get more notice. Prhartcom (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested split of Modern history (1800 to present)

G'day all, I reckon Wikipedia:Good_articles/Warfare#Battles and exercises Modern history (1800 to present) (in the Milhist genre) should be split. Perhaps 1800-1899, 1900-1999 and 2000-. This subsection currently has nearly 400 articles, and is huge in comparison to the others in the genre. Thoughts? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, I'm sorry no one has answered the issue you raised in a timely fashion. I only just now noticed there is not a Talk page for each category of GA articles; i.e. this category WP:GA/W. You may want to consider being bold and going ahead and doing the work you describe; I myself once did so in a different category. Prhartcom (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Help from a Finnish speaker on Kajaani?

Can someone (preferably someone who speaks Finnish) help me with Kajaani, an article about a Finnish town with 37,000 people? It passed GA review but has been challenged. Help would be appreciated! Regards, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

AmaryllisGardener, I'm sorry no one answered your question and I see that the matter is apparently resolved. Not many editors watch this page, I'm afraid. This isn't really the place to ask such a question; FYI: There is a Talk page at Portal:Finland. Prhartcom (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: Yeah, it's been resolved. I'll keep that tp in mind in case I need more assistance. Thanks for your reply! :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Good Article promoted in 2013, nominated for deletion

Critical response to She Has a Name, Good Article promoted in 2013, has been nominated for deletion.

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Animal Sacrifice

This article doesn't mention animal sacrifice performed at many Kali or Durga temples throughout India. Must say that is a serious ommision.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Jonathansammy, please say so at the article's Talk page, not here. Prhartcom (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

It is already mentioned at Animal Sacrifice as well Animal Sacrifice in Hinduism but it should be included here as well. I want to discuss it here before adding content to a GAJonathansammy (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't discuss this topic here. Neither of those articles are GA. Please don't reply with your reasons why you think we should discuss it here; this Talk page is only for discussing the process of Good article nominations. If you need help, you can let me know. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case, where do I discuss inclusion of this information of overwhelming importance to the article ?Jonathansammy (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

On the article's talk page; not here. Prhartcom (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

By 2013 Eminem has sold over 172 million albums

95.233.86.101 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Traditional African medicine

Can someone familiar with the process update this article's talk page and remove it from Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences? It seems to have failed reassessment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, I'd be happy too, but I'm not sure I understand: Why has never been listed at WP:GAR? I notice in the last few months there have there been edits on the article talk page back and forth from C class to GA class. I see the GA2 page but I'm not sure there is consensus on it to delist the article or even why it exists without a listing on GAR. Thanks for clearing up my confusion. Prhartcom (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Prhartcom: No idea. I was looking at the GA list, clicked on the article link, and noticed there was no GA icon in the top right corner. I then went to the talk page and tried to figure out why the headers state it's as GA but the GAR said it was delisted. I couldn't, so I'm here :) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

All right, thanks for doing that. I know one of the editors who commented; Brigade Piron may be able to help. Also calling on LT910001 who apparently created the GA2 page and can probably answer my question. If there is consensus to delist it that shouldn't be a problem. Prhartcom (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello if that page was created by me it was done accidentally. I fully support delisting for reasons documented at the page. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, I see that an individual reassessment was initiated, not a community reassessment, which is the only kind that are listed at WP:GAR. I have delisted the article per consensus. It can be reinstated as GA quality by any editor who is ready to submit it to review at WP:GAN. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Good article nomination timing

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposal. ResMar 01:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2015

Messi's goals in La Liga is 278 not 400. 139.194.97.251 (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Good articles. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Good articles in the Signpost

As you may know, we've started providing bare lists of GA promotions in the featured content section of the Signpost.

We're fine for this week, since the cutoff is always a week and a half before publication (otherwise, we'd have three days to do the work in), but we have a problem for next week: [Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Good_articles_by_quality_log&offset=&limit=500&action=history The good article log is corrupt after 12 April.] - I don't know if it'll resume sanity from the 16th, but the entries for the 13th and 14th are completely corrupt, and I suspect the 15th of being problematic as well.

So... anyone have any ideas? I'd prefer not to screw people out of recognition because the bot went crazy, but I've been depending on that for entries, and I'll have to drop the feature if I have to spend an entire day compiling them every week. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Good Lists

There is a proposal to set up a new classification level, Good List. Please add your comments there. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Civil servants

David Bednar was notable as a theatre exec, in the corporate world. But his legacy is as general manager of an independent non profit corp, the Canadian National Exhibition Association. There's no category for government employees... Do I just put him under the businessperson section? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

There a politics and government category, which might be appropriate for civil servants? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure he's a "political figure", though. Would it be kosher to create a new subcategory of "Politics and government"? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Zanimum, I missed your reply. Did you get this sorted? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Good article reassessment backlog

There is a backlog of articles waiting for community reassessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, and DragonZero informs me that they're the only editor who has been closing these for the past year or so. That doesn't seem fair to me, so assistance from other editors would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Assistance

It seems that a reviewer for an article that I nominated has disappeared. Would anyone care to take a look? RGloucester — ☎ 15:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you are right; I wonder if you scared them off. I see however that they are very active elsewhere and that you have not tried to contact them. Could you please send positive statements their way, encouraging them to return? If that does not work, you will have to reset and try again; I can help you with the necessary paperwork if that is needed. Good luck. Prhartcom (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The user has not responded to my talk page query. I do not see why I should have to reset. The article was in the queue for months prior to being picked up. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I've posted a reminder about your message on their talk page, just in case they missed or forgot your message. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

He's asked for someone else to complete the review, as he's occupied. RGloucester — ☎ 18:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

RGloucester, I am glad to see the reviewer has returned. It is of course understandable when a reviewer becomes busy in their personal life, but I hope that they can remain committed for the week it should take to complete this review. I was looking over the editing experience of this reviewer and they seem competent and capable. As well, their comments on your GA1 page are all reasonable. I notice with concern, however, that occasionally your responses toward their comments do not convey a positive attitude nor are they conducive to a good working relationship. If I were them I would be turned off by some of those responses while reviewing your work and might look for an excuse to work elsewhere. While I notice that all your responses are factually correct and you have good reasons to push back, please accept my suggestion to keep your responses neutral or in a more positive, respectful tone. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. A reviewer must respond to my queries. If a reviewer makes up nonsense out of thin air, without providing citations of relevant policies/guidelines, I will demand an explanation. There is no need for "positivity", only severity. RGloucester — ☎ 15:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. You are of course welcome to be severe, but my sincere suggestion was only to politely request, rather than demand. With the greatest respect, please consider the probable reason you were forced to come to this page for assistance in the first place. I truly hope the review goes well. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I was forced to come to this page because of the incompetence of a reviewer. If he cannot answer my queries in a timely fashion, he should not be reviewing articles. If one undertakes a responsibility, one must complete it. None of my remarks have been "uncivil". They have simply probed for answers that have not yet been provided. RGloucester — ☎ 15:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

add the USA sales so far are

why is this article locked ?

to the commercial section add that as of jan 2015 she has sold 1.56 million copies in usa. here is the source http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6450846/ask-billboard-controversial-hits-katy-perrys-sales-taylor-swifts?page=0%2C1 . 50.246.91.141 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

50.246.91.141, this talk page is for discussing the list of Good Articles, not individual articles (and you don't specify which article you are talking about in any case). I suggest that you take this up on the talk page of the relevant article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Review of Negative resistance

The reviewer at Talk:Negative resistance/GA1 has put the article on hold and declared that he will not pass the article for reasons he admits himself are not part of the GA criteria (principally over-referencing). He has also declared that he will hand over to another reviewer. There is a discussion of the issue at the user's talk page. Comments? SpinningSpark 22:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Query about GAN and WP:OVERCITE. SpinningSpark 07:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Bharat Ratna

Bharat Ratna was listed as a good article by the now banned user AmritasyaPutra, who did not list it under a category at Wikipedia:Good articles/all. They put |topic=Culture, sociology and psychology in {{GA}} on Talk:Bharat Ratna, but I'm unsure exactly where the article would go. Could someone else please work out where the article fits and then add it to the list, updating the talk page template if necessary? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 23:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done @Bilorv: It belongs to the Organizations and events subtopic and I've added it there, so no need to update the talk template. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015

Please add new section 'Awards' - relevant to Google Inc

In 2015, Google ranked #2 great places to work in India. [6] Google won 2013 ‘overall brand of the year’ award from Ace Metrix [7]. In 2015, Fortune has awarded Google best place to work consecutively for 6 years. [8]

Jame0360 (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Google is currently a good article, but it's correctly categorized under Engineering and technology. Pages are categorized under a single heading that describes the entity, not just a random word associated with them (e.g. "Awards"). If you're suggesting the page Google needs an Awards section, please post this comment on Talk:Google. As the banner at the top of this page says "Comments on individual Good Articles should be posted on their article talk pages." — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Unlisted good articles

Asher Vollmer, Histoire Naturelle, I Ching, Shahid Kapoor and USS Maine (BB-10) appear to have passed GA reviews, but they are not listed anywhere on Wikipedia:Good articles/all. Could someone please work out where they should go and add them there? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Bilorv, this is done. Thanks for pointing this out. I wish we had a bot to find and fix cases like these. Prhartcom (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Salvage Help Requested

I gave an immediate failure to the article George Washington Truett. Aside from missing a number of GA-criteria, there was something extremely fishy about the editors in question and I deferred to my gut instinct to make this an immediate fail instead of wasting resources on a review that would have been extremely painstaking due to the volume of problems with the article. Anyway, I got a severe browbeating from BlueMoonset who took me to the woodshed over my decision to fail it immediately. In response, and against my better judgment, I invested significant time into a second review (including tracking down and uploading audio) only to see the nominating editor then immediately indeffed for sockpuppetry before they could begin to respond. While it's good to know my gut instinct is still working to A+ level, I'm disappointed at having spent all this time on the (second ... sigh) review. I was wondering if anyone would mind taking over this article so my (reluctant) work isn't wasted? Thanks. (Pinging Prhartcom and SilkTork in case they're available.) LavaBaron (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you mean take over as the nominator? Well, I could do that; I've just had a look at the sources and they appear to be fine except for a couple of them, and the gentleman was from my city. I'm looking it now. Prhartcom (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious about LavaBaron's gut, since the original GAN of the Truett article was made back on March 17, 2015, by Ducknish. Ducknish had made some significant edits that improved the article (though there were certainly issues left over), and who is currently some sort of Wikipedia intern. If there's something "extremely fishy" about Ducknish—a serious accusation—perhaps LavaBaron could explain what that was, or issue an apology for the characterization. Remember that the second nomination, by the now-blocked sockpuppet Spaghetti07205, was only made after the immediate fail of the first that had been submitted by Ducknish over four months earlier. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting; did you notice that the indefed editor responded to the GA1 reviewer as if they were the nominator? And the real nominator never responded? Ah, well. So, I'm still taking a look at this article. Prhartcom (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic, thanks so much, Prhartcom! Sorry to hoist this on you. LavaBaron (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

LavaBaron, I regret to say I have not mustered the energy to make GA improvements to this article as it personally does not interest me, but of course that is a vote against me and not the article nor your review efforts. I made a small improvement and BlueMoonset has also, perhaps they would like to bring it to GA under your review, but otherwise you may have to fail it again. [Note: Perhaps that this discussion should have been posted elsewhere; see notice at top of page.] Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom, since LavaBaron has undertaken the review, it's now up to him to either continue it or ask someone else to take over—he may have been asking you to assume responsibility for the review itself rather than fix up the article as a nominator stand-in. As for the issues raised in the review, I believe I have made corrections that address all of the issues that LavaBaron has raised. This doesn't mean that it is necessarily ready for listing, either because I may not have been sufficiently thorough in doing so or there may well be other issues to be found. I am willing to at least attempt any future fixes, should LavaBaron find additional issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank-you, yes, I may have misunderstood. I'm glad you were able to make the outstanding corrections; in fact, if LavaBaron is still reviewing, you could possibly take over as the official nominator! If not, I could be coaxed into being the reviewer if necessary. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion

I'm looking for a second opinion (or third, or fourth) at Talk:Paulo Francis/GA4. If you are willing to help, please do! Wugapodes (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wugapodes, this request would be better on the WT:GAN page, which deals with good article nominations. You're likely to get more assistance there, since more people watchlist that page. As it says at the top of this talk page, this is for the list of actual good articles. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I misunderstood the banner. My apologies. I have moved it to WT:GAN. Wugapodes (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Split animals?

There has long been a hidden comment requesting some sort of split of the animal section, but on what grounds? Taxonomic? Or could be extant/extinct? Also, just changed the subsection "animal genera" to taxa, as most were species. FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. I see what you mean there at Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#Animals. I have not your biological skill, but I have generic advice: I remember splitting the literature section that had the same problem into fifteen much more browsable sections. To know what new categories to have, I let it sort itself: I opened each article to learn what it consisted of, then temporarily noted its category name in all caps directly on the line of that article on the list page (i.e. changing the line "Jaws (novel)" to "NOV Jaws (novel)"; I didn't Save the new page but Previewed it). I proceed that way for a few hours, creating new categories as I discovered them, until it was done. Then I just sorted the page by the noted temporary category names. Another idea I did separately was Save the new category subheadings on the page, but without any articles under them, then announce this new change here; other editors could then comment on the new category subheadings. Of course, the last step was to Save the page of new category subheadings with the articles under them, removing the temporary category names from each line only at the last moment. It was a bold project but I didn't receive much resistance, so I recommend it wholeheartedly if you are up to it. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool, the main obstacle is to find out which way to split it. Hopefully some more people will have a look at this. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I was thinking that the articles should be split into which group they are in (eg. Arthropoda), but another alternative would be based on age (eg. Cambrian animals). Another possibility is to divide it as small as (eg. Cambrian Arthropoda), but I think that is a little too specific. IJReid ^discuss 14:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm fine with dividing up animals along very broad taxonomic groups rather than geologic age or extinct status (or perhps an extinct section could follow each section). The categories should be divisions any high schooler would recognize (e.g. Mammals, Insects, Fishes, Reptiles, and Other), and not all groups need be monophyletic clades. Too many categories with too few articles would be over-splitting, so for stylistic reasons related groups (e.g. "Insects & Spiders" or simply "Arthropods") or unrelated groups (e.g. "Other invertebrates") could be lumped until there are enough articles to robustly populate a category. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with very broad taxonomic groups then, wasn't sure what the standards for splitting these lists are. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: A good way to quickly assess relative numbers of taxa would be to browse Project categories (e.g. Category:GA-Class Insects articles and Category:GA-Class mammal articles), and/or external tools like Article list tool. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

After searching through the various GA animal lists and filtering non-taxonomic articles, domestic breeds, and individuals, I get the following rough break down, sorted into fairly broad/recognizable groups (and found a couple articles not currently listed). All include extinct members, with the exception of Reptiles & Amphibians, but the Dinosaurs could be merged.

• Fish (including sharks): 131
• Mammals: 124
• Birds: 90
• Reptiles & Amphibians (excluding dinosaurs but including other prehistoric reptiles): 36
• Dinosaurs: 43
• Arthropods: 64
• Other invertebrates (sponges, worms, molluscs, etc.): 27

Do these seem like reasonable groups? I realize that Reptiles & amphibians is not a natural group, but is commonly used (just see any herpetology book). I'm fine with a single invertebrate group as well. I hesitate to make too many more categories, even in the larger categories like Fish and Mammals, to prevent too much splitting, there's nothing terribly wrong with large categories: we're just trying to showcase articles here, not teach a lesson in taxonomy. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, seems there are enough dinosaurs to keep them separate. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

FunkMonk and Animalparty, I urge you to proceed with splitting the "Animals" section according to the suggested groups above, as no one objects and it will be useful to others. Feel free to use the trick I describe above to get this done, if you wish. Quick questions: I see that the "Animals" is currently split into two groups, "Animal taxa" (510 articles) and "Animal domestic breeds, types, and individuals" (96 articles), and after noticing the numbers above add up to 515, I believe you are actually talking about splitting "Animal taxa" into the above seven sub-groups and leaving "Domestic breeds" as an eighth sub-group of "Animals", at an equal level to the other seven, is that right? If so, I see that each of the eight sub-groups will use "======" six equal signs in their heading, right? And I don't suggest using the parenthetical words in the suggested groups above, right? Prhartcom (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, domestic breeds should be separate. As for doing the split itself, I'm not much into the technical side of things, and my math skills are so bad that I'll probably do more harm than good... FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll work on this in the next day or two, as I've already got a spreadsheet of the animal articles, sorted by group. I'll need to check for any newly added articles, and make sure I don't inadvertently omit any from the list. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Great, good luck. You may want to take the word "Animal" out of the eighth sub-heading title. When it's done, for fun, edit the page and remove the line containing the "NO TOC" magic words found at the top and Preview the page (don't Save it), just to look at the new Table of Contents. Cheers, Prhartcom (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Passing articles after failing them.

I failed two articles on review by myself by one nominator due to no response in the seven day grace period and extremely low activity by the nominator in that time, only a few edits, and no acknowledgement indicated to me that the he needed extra time due to real life. I failed them this morning, on the seventh day, and the nominator has since proceeded to come online, see it failed, and made the improvements, and has asked me if they are now acceptable to pass. Am I allowed to remove the failed GA templates which have been processed by the bot and replaced them with passed GA templates, or does he have to re-nominate them and wait for them to be reviewed a second time? A speedy response on this would be great to get it sorted quickly.  — Calvin999 16:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually work on Good Articles at all (for some reason I have this page watchlisted), but I would say you should just change them to passed if you think they now meet the requirements. If they are of Good Article quality and have been reviewed, I see no reason why they shouldn't be promoted, and making the nominator re-nominate them would use up other reviewers time that could instead be spent reviewing other articles. Calathan (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks for clarifying. I didn't know if it was allowed, or I was allowed to do it.  — Calvin999 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Calvin999, this question would be better asked at WT:GAN (about the review process) rather than here. People have certainly reopened recently concluded GA reviews before, if they closed them and then a response came in that made it appropriate to reopen the review. I wouldn't just change the result without opening the review; then you have a review page that said the nomination failed and a status of GA, which makes no sense. There's certainly no requirement that holds be exactly 7 days. But, as I said, going to the GAN talk page is best with this kind of question. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

GA status for "Inna"

I just finished the editing process for the article Inna. I think it is now ready for the Good-article-status. Can anyone help me with this process (or stuff like this)? I'm not so long on Wikipedia. Thanks!

Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak, you'll want to read up on the Good Article criteria, which is at WP:WIAGA, to make sure your article fulfills these requirements. Some of these criteria are not obvious: for example, 1b talks about the manual of style guidelines, including for the lead (intro) section (see WP:LEAD). Your article, at just under 30,000 characters, should have a lead section of around three or maybe four paragraphs (never more than four); it currently has five. Also, significant facts should not appear in the lead unless they are also in the body of the article—the lead summarizes the article—yet in the lead's second sentence you talk about her having a billion YouTube hits, a major detail that's only in the lead. Glancing through the references at the bottom, I see that there's an error noted for reference 81 that needs fixing. You'll want to clean up as much as you can. See Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles for more information.

When you're ready to nominate, go to the GA nomination instructions page and read the "Nominating" section for instructions on what to do to make the actual nomination. Best of luck! If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me, or you can post to the WT:GAN page. (This isn't actually the correct page to post questions on the GA nomination process, but there's no point in moving it now that I've answered.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad ordering

It would appear that some of the "art" articles are in the "architecture" section. For example the National Police Memorial, The Dream (sculpture), World War I Memorial (East Providence, Rhode Island), Sir Bevil Grenville's Monument and Statue of James II, Trafalgar Square.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

TangoTizerWolfstone, thank-you for your diligent observations. It appears you are right, and it looks like it needs the attention of a single editor rather than the multiple editors who of course add one article at a time. We don't have a staff of workers here at the GA Help Desk, but I have done this kind of reorganization of the articles within the sub-lists and I hope you also feel encouraged as well to move the articles into the correct sub-lists and update the tallies yourself. If you are able to do so, thanks very much for improving Wikipedia. Prhartcom (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015

Jensen01hi (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. There doesn't seem to be a request here. @Jensen01hi: if you would like to clarify and reopen this request, please do. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Jensen01hi, you should also make your request on the talk page of the article that is semi-protected, not here. Prhartcom (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015

Can you please not let people just put what they want on here. Because kids could be researching for facts and people are putting fake things on here and make them get a bad grade from people putting fake stuff on here. For example that happened to me in 3rd and 4th grad

by

have a good evening

)

Free7272 (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We do not pretend that Wikipedia is a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Prhartcom (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2015

195.195.223.50 (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC) he also had great hair man

If you have a request, it's good to actually request it; otherwise that template's entirely useless. GRAPPLE ^X 11:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2015

Hello

Goodbye 82.8.133.78 (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

See Grapple's comment above. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

117.200.88.85 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You're making a habit of this aren't you? GRAPPLE ^X 10:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

117.214.44.105 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No action taken as you request was empty - again. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2015

Fernandaaass (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to be done. GRAPPLE ^X 15:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Split animal taxa section?

Any objection to splitting the huge animal taxa section into say vertebrates & invertebrates? Or would there be a better way to split it more evenly? This is just the kind of mind numbing task I'd be into. delldot ∇. 03:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm for it. There was an earlier discussion on this, with consensus of around 5-6 sections: see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_14#Split_animals?. I was going to do it but got caught up in other things: you're welcome to use the out-of-date draft at my sandbox for reference. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, as AP said. Might want to place the dinos and birds adjacent to the reptiles, though? FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. This has been proposed before and Animalparty! laid out the way it should be split at Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 14#Split animals?. Does that sub-catigorization look okay? Prhartcom (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks folks. I'll definitely use that draft, --Animalparty! Although I might order it Mammals, Birds, Reptiles & amphibians, Dinosaurs, Fish, Arthropods, Other inverts. What do you think? delldot ∇. 18:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That order is fine by me. Please note that my draft may be incomplete and is certainly out of date, as there have been new animal GAs promoted since, and some may not be currently on the GA page: I used WP:CatScan to find articles, a couple of which weren't listed. Thanks for taking on this task. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Done, feel free to correct anything that needs it. I haven't used CatScan yet, so it's all only what was already on the page. delldot ∇. 07:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal atVillage Pump

There is an ongoing proposal about the GAC here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposed_Amendments_to_GA_Criteria. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Participants here often create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a content is neutral, determine if sources are reliable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to further subdivide architecture?

Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture is approaching 400 articles now under "Architecture". Perhaps we could split a few ones like houses and hotels?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Cat

This article was promoted yesterday and in all honesty I am concerned whether or not it should have been listed in the first place. For starters I am not sure if the article has gone through a thorough copyedit, and there are still "citation needed" and "clarification needed" tags. There are also several citations within the article tagged with "self-published source" and "dead link". Many seem to be unreliable too. This statement has been added to many references:

"This is a tertiary source that clearly includes information from other sources but does not name them."

I have noticed that some paragraphs are not even cited, and the user who nominated the article wasn't even a major contributor (infact I don't think they even made a single one until someone decided to review this). I think an urgent second review is needed. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

Ladycools (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe^It's_2016? 23:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2016

Change married to Tyler Diebel. 66.87.144.111 (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean; this is just a list of articles so there's no real content to change. Is there an article in particular you're asking about? GRAPPLE ^X 15:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Good articles. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. --Majora (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Add an Anatomy section?

I notice the Biology section has a lot of articles like Brain, Cervix, Pudendal nerve, etc. Would it make sense to add an anatomy section just for these? (It could be human and nonhuman anatomy). I would be happy to do the split. delldot ∇. 21:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Prhartcom:, @Animalparty:, @FunkMonk:, you all weighed in on the Animal taxa split earlier, any thoughts on this idea? delldot ∇. 16:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

United States

I am not sure how this passed a GA review considering the disputes ongoing and grossly over sized article with dead links and dated statements. Do other think this should be reviewed? Talk:United States/GA2 is so small considering all the problems.-- Moxy (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend leaving a note on the talk page outlining what you think needs fixed, then take to WP:GAR if they don't get addressed in a reasonable time. delldot ∇. 04:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Flame & Citron

The article Flame & Citron passed the GA review on January 19, 2016 ([9]) but until know the bot didn't add the GA icon. Is it a problem if I add on my own? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, I have noticed this problem too. I have done this with many articles I have promoted or others that have been passed. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Creating a bot to identify out-of-date information in Wikipedia entries

There are a mass of entries in English and Chinese Wikipedia that include out-of-date facts or references. And there are some existed software tools or algorithms relative to natural language pattern matching to solve this problem. We would like to measure the usefulness of these tools and algorithms and create a new bot to identify those information based on the result of measurement. During the work of measuring existed tools and testing the new bot, we will try to collect abundant Wikipedia entries and create some new cases. And the modular software can be used by Wikireview and other contributors of Wikipedia.

URL of detailed proposal is here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Searching_for_out-of-date_information_in_wikipedias

Please give us your advice in the discussion board of the proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Searching_for_out-of-date_information_in_wikipedias

Li Linxuan (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2016

There is no proof but TV images that this person walked on the Moon. This article must be considered incomplete and must have different sources to approve this fact. Madovsky (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Madovsky, welcome to Wikipedia. This is not the right place to place this notice; it belongs on the talk page of the article. Can you please reply below what lead you to this page? I've seen others incorrectly place this notice here and I'd like to know what led them here. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Core Contest

Hi folks, The Core Contest is on again, running from May 15 to June 30. Enter at Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries. Cheers! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Cricket and baseball

Hello. These two sports should be having separate listings under "Sport and recreation". I have completed a split in the article listings page but cannot access the index page where there is the "baseball and cricket" entry. The icon used in the article listing was a football, which is obviously in error, so I have inserted baseball and cricket ball icons in new listings. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 06:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I was not looking far enough and have found the right page now. The change has been made. You have incorrect icons for all sports and I will try to be rectifying this. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 06:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Lesbian

I see that within "Culture, sociology, and psychology" articles, the article Lesbian is listed under "ethnic groups". It should be moved somewhere else, perhaps to "Culture and cultural studies". Lesbians are not an ethnic group. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The criteria you mention are very rarely considered to be relevant at RfA. Eric Corbett 16:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Time to stop automatically replacing the "A", "B" and "C" quality levels with "GA"?

I can understand not allowing FAs to be classified as being of a certain level of quality according to random passers-by, but the GAN process is nowhere near strict enough to override all previous assessments of the articles' quality (it is essentially just the same thing -- a random Wikipedia editor decides, often based simply on the quality of the prose and how nice the article looks to promote it or not). We have articles that are immediately moved up from "Start" to "GA" based on this assessment process (just one example), but the question rarely seems to be asked why the article was classified as "Start" before the GA review passed.

Given how often GA reviews pass without any serious, critical source checks, shouldn't we make some allowance for WikiProjects to maintain their original quality assessments and clarify that GA status is often just a matter of opinion and often based on nothing more than the appearance of quality?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

No. If anything, a GA review is more reliable than most assessments without a process. Few wikiprojects actually take the time to assess most, if any, of their articles, and and even fewer do so with any sort of criteria. Just look at the number of entries in Category:Unassessed military history articles: 1,880 and it's one of the largest wikiprojects! Fewer even have a process to determine A-class articles which are already rated higher than GA. The GA criteria are stricter than the B-, C-, Start-, and Stub-class criteria, so if a reviewer feels it meets the GA criteria, yes, it is higher than those classes. Most notably, B-class articles are not as stringent in their citation requirements, and do not require broad coverage. If other editors disagree, as with any other process, consensus is sought on whether it does or does not meet the GA criteria, and this happens often, probably more often than people discuss whether an article meets the B- or C-class criteria. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 07:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, if what you say about "B-class articles [...] not [being] as stringent in their citation requirements" is true, then would you be in favour of being more assertive in encouraging GA reviewers to at least pretend to have examined the citations? Most GA reviews I have seen do not address all six criteria, if they mention any of the criteria explicitly. Should GA reviews that do not mention the criteria be dismissed and such articles be reassessed (without the standard bias in favour of "maintaining" GA status that never should have been granted to begin with)? Should reviewers who repeatedly pass articles without mentioning the criteria be banned from reviewing GA candidates? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be labouring under a false premise. Whether or not a GA reviewer mentions the criteria is no indication one way or another that he or she hasn't assessed the article against the criteria. Eric Corbett 16:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe that WikiProjects are free to re-evaluate an article at any time, and can replace a GA for their project if their criteria indicates a more appropriate class. (They are not free to change the article's GA status, however, absent a WP:GAR.) However, WikiProject class assessments are done infrequently, and articles nominated at GAN may well be at Start class because no one has reassessed them since the work began to improve them beyond early beginnings, whether those were two months ago or two years ago. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyone is free to take an an article to GAR. But if an article nominated at GAN is actually at start class then it will not be promoted to GA except by an idiot reviewer, in which case the promotion is easily reversed. Eric Corbett 18:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

GA

Special:Diff/730185929--OJJ (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Sexual Preference (book)

Midnightblueowl added the article Sexual Preference (book) to the "Psychology and psychologists" section. Although the article could certainly be added there, a case could be made for adding it to the "Anthropology, anthropologists, sociology and sociologists" section instead. Of the book's three authors, one was a psychologist, while the other two are sociologists. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Protect page

I think we should protect this page somewhat so people can't keep writing that they're a "censorship advocacy group". Could someone please do that? Tjdrum2000 (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2016

MLP appears to be an independent risk factor for mortality in community acquire pneumonia and its addition may help improve commonly used prognostic indices in the future [citation: Gurdeep Singh Mannu, Yoon Kong Loke, James Peter Curtain, Kelum Nadeesha Pelpola, Phyo Kyaw Myint, Prognosis of multi-lobar pneumonia in community-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis, European Journal of Internal Medicine, Volume 24, Issue 8, December 2013, Pages 857-863, ISSN 0953-6205, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2013.05.001.]

JSadari (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@JSadari: I think you want to add something to a specific article which hasn't been named here. This is the talk page for the list of Good Articles. You should try to directly edit the article you want to change, or make your request on that article's talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 18:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016

Greninja123 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC) CREATE A GSCAM WIKAPEDIA

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016

92.15.200.41 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Good articles, not any individual articles - Arjayay (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2016

Change Kevin Durant's height from 6'9 to 6'11. It was recently revealed in a interview that he is actually 6'11. 1moneyglass83 (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@1moneyglass83: this is a talk page for the list of Good Articles, not for requesting changes to specific articles. You want to see if you can edit Kevin Durant directly, or else make a request at Talk:Kevin Durant. Imzadi 1979 → 00:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Query re: GA Bot

G'day all, I just promoted Sam Manekshaw on its third try, but the nom received a "failed" message, and the icon hasn't been added to the page. Did I screw something up? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Stand-alone lists being nominated as Good Articles

FYI

 – Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Request for comment on stand-alone lists being nominated as Good Articles

--Redrose64 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that one of the three proposals in this RfC involves creating a separate "Good Lists" rating and process independent of the GA process. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Major problems with mobile view

The main page doesn't work in mobile view on the iPhone, not sure abouut other devices. It only shows the left half of the page in both portrait and landscape view and it doesn't zoom out. If you try to scroll over to see the rest, it swipes you to the next tab. I don't know anything about formatting for mobile, so hopefully someone who does will see this. —PermStrump(talk) 20:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like an issue to raise at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), Permstrump, rather than at good articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I thought this might not be the right place, but figured I'd start here. I'll post a note over there. Thanks!—PermStrump(talk) 21:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggested engineering subtopic

There are many articles in the "engineering technology" section that are neither items of technology nor a technological process. I think we need an "Engineering analysis" section, or something similar. Some of the articles that don't really fit with their current subsection, but could be described as analysis include; Foster's reactance theorem, Impedance analogy, Mechanical-electrical analogies, Mobility analogy, Negative resistance, Prototype filter, Reflections of signals on conducting lines, Topology (electrical circuits), Antimetric electrical network, Nominal impedance, Primary line constants. SpinningSpark 18:29, 13 January 2017‎ (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to split it into "engineering" and "technology" as engineering analysis seems too niche. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 18:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be next to impossible to separate, too much overlap. I don't think separating out theory related articles is particularly niche. SpinningSpark 00:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Medicine promotion

The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap. It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development. The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Engaging Wikipedians

• Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
• Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review)
• Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

Engaging non-Wikipedians

We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:

• Printing off the advertisement poster and distribute in tearooms & noticeboards at your place of work
• Emailing around the pdf through contact networks or mailing lists (suggested wording)

If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed. Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.

Additionally, the WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Electoral history of Ronald Reagan

I successfully nominated the article Electoral history of Ronald Reagan as a good article half a year ago, but it is not listed here. Why is that? Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of the reviewer, it looks like they forgot to add it to the list after passing the review. They passed other GAs that same day and added them to the lists, so missing this one was probably just an oversight. I just added it to Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society#Political events and elections. --RL0919 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated! --1990'sguy (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Article incorrectly listed as GA here?

I think there's some mistake with Progressive pop being listed here under Wikipedia:Good articles/Music. It doesn't seem as though a GA review ever took place, but someone added the GA icon at the article on 8 November, based on the article's appearance in the list here, and the talk page was then changed accordingly. Or maybe I'm missing something? JG66 (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you missed anything. There is no GA review page that I could find; the listing appears to be in error. I've removed it and commented in the thread on the article Talk page. On a related note, does anyone know of a systematic way to find GA misrepresentation? I recently found over a half dozen articles with GA icons placed when there was no GA review. That's what brought me here, where I discovered this discussion. I found them by looking at short articles that show up in Category:Good articles (using PetScan), but manual checking isn't efficient. --RL0919 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@RL0919: I've created a list of articles that are in the category, but do not have a GA review page at User:Spinningspark/Sandbox2. Unfortunately, most of them are false positives. Many older articles did not have a separate review page and it's pretty impossible to locate an unstructured review with an automatic process. There are also some that have a review page that doesn't exactly match the article name. False negatives are also possible; an article may have a review page, but was failed. Those won't show up in my list. I'll leave the list in sandbox for a while, but please move it somewhere more permanent if it is useful (at least it gets the number of articles to check down from 25,000 to about 3,000). SpinningSpark 00:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've asked at WP:VPT about the possibility of moving some of these old reviews to a /GA1 page through an automatic or semi-automatic process. We might be able to get this list down to numbers that can be gone through manually. If it proves to be possible, is there consensus to do this. SpinningSpark 08:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, right now we know that reviews on /GAn pages were done through the more modern, automated process, while ones that are just on the talk pages are from before then. This would prevent that kind of certainty. There will also be cases where the original GA review was pre-/GAn, but there are subsequent individual GA reassessments (GARs) and new GA reviews that do use /GAn pages; these wouldn't fall on your list anyway because there are /GAn pages even if they may not be actual GA reviews. I would like to suggest that you go to WT:GAN and ask there as well, since this is effectively moving old reviews from where they were to a new location, unless you were proposing to copy the reviews onto new pages and also leaving them on the article talk pages (or talk page archives). You're also likely to attract more eyeballs, and thus more thoughts on the matter. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I had already left a note on the GAN talk page pointing here. Yes, I appreciate that there may be problem pages that do have a /GAn page but we can at least find the ones that have never had any kind of eyes on them. For the ones with reviews on talk pages I propose to transclude the review back on to the talk page as we now do normally. See my post at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Move GA reviews to the standard location. After looking manually at a few of my list of 3000 pages with no review page in the right place, I am confident that at least 90% of them are going to have a real review that the bot can find. That list is going to whittle down to a dozen or two at most that can be looked at in more detail manually. SpinningSpark 20:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Correcting the topic

I recently nominated an article for GA status and put it under a certain topic, but on second thought I probably should have listed it under a different topic than what I did. Would it be OK for me to change the topic for the nomination? --1990'sguy (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

1990'sguy, I just realized I answered this on the GAN page a couple of weeks ago, so apologies for the duplication here. I've replaced the duplicate advice made about a minute ago with this sentence. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sub-subtopic names

For better organization of these lists, does anyone object to me breaking out topics which have over 100 links in them, if it makes sense to break them out? An obvious choice in the link I provided is breaking out the Olympics and Paralympics articles. I personally use these lists to try to find good articles that already exist on a topic I am reviewing or writing, and the easier I can find them the better.

Anyone object to me being bold and doing that? Any thoughts or suggestions on this topic? Kees08 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Olympics and Paralympics might be ok to split, but otherwise, at least on the sports sections, I don't see anything that has to be split. 100's really not all that many and it sounds like work for the sake of such. I'd say if you're gonna split anything at least start at the 300+ ones at a minimum. Wizardman 20:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I'll see if anyone else has any opinions. Do you have any thoughts on the current format? I would prefer a four column, auto numbered format. I think it would look cleaner. Kees08 (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone illegitimately removing my good article nomination(s)?

An inexperienced editor just removed my Good Article nomination for Adele. Major contribution is not a criteria for good article nominations, but only for Featured ones. I am ready to make repairs and work on the article and will become a major contributor in the GA process. I wish that an admin stops him/her.--Shane Cyrus (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Russian military deception

I just promoted Russian military deception to GA. I'm unclear, however, where under Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare I should list it. It's a set of tactics underlying a strategy, so it doesn't seem to fit anywhere. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

G'day, yes I see your point. Perhaps we need to create a new category for it? Something generic like "Strategy and tactics" or similar. Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2017

Under "Biology and Behavior/Behavior": "A red panda Futa became a visitor attraction in Japan for his ability to stand upright for ten seconds at a time." should read "A red panda, Futa, became a visitor attraction in Japan for his ability to stand upright for ten seconds at a time." 99.39.112.29 (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Done misplaced but done Cannolis (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A new project needs you

Please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Poll candidate search needs your participation.

Please join and participate.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2017

Edit requested: Add where the Congressman Barney Frank's archives are held.

Archives information: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, link http://www.lib.umassd.edu/archives/congressman-barney-frank-collection Lvandenberg (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Good articles. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:59, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Criterion #2 and copying within Wikipedia?

Hey, WP:GACR says that a GA nomination will immediately fail if [i]t contains copyright infringements and one of the sub-criteria under Criterion #2 is it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism, which links to Wikipedia:Copyrights. I have a question about unattributed copying within Wikipedia, which is addressed on the linked page.

If material that was copy-pasted within Wikipedia, without attribution, makes up a significant portion of a GA nomination, does that count as a copyvio for GA purposes? What about if it was accidental and edit summaries can't be edited after the fact to give proper attribution?

Specifically, I am a little concerned about Talk:Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack)/GA1, which didn't apparently address copyright issues, but per this analysis appears to have largely been copy-pasted from the August 2016 edition of Music of Game of Thrones. The edit that moved the material out of the original article mentioned the target of the move in its edit summary, but the page history of the GA in question doesn't mention that the material was copy-pasted from there.

Cheers,

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Hijiri 88 and thank-you for your help addressing addressing any copyright violation concerns. You know better than to ask this question here; please read the warning at the top of this page, which states that this talk page should be used for discussions relating to the list of Good Articles itself, and that questions like this about the Good Article Nomination process should be asked at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. The answer to your question is no; according to WP:CWW, copying within Wikipedia does not count as copy violation; only the original unattributed copy/paste from an external source does. Both the "parent" and "child" article should both separately address any copyright concerns, according to WP:COPYVIO. Cheers. —Prhartcom♥ 13:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here.

Hello Flyer22 Reborn; thank-you, and please remember to sign your posts. Cheers, —Prhartcom♥ 13:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Prhart, I almost always sign my username. See this edit where I made the same post elsewhere? It's signed. I made this post to a number of pages that day. Sorry for the mistake of not signing here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

To be clearer, I always sign my username unless I've somehow made a mistake or unless the signature is not required. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, agreed. Thanks again. Cheers. —Prhartcom♥ 13:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Add Good article icons?

Should good article icons be added to 2016 Manzanita tornado and Debby Applegate? I've created talk page discussions for each in an attempt to confirm. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you can add it yourself. A bot should have done upon promotion.  — Calvin999 15:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk page notification of GA pass

My GA nomination of Revolver (Beatles album) was successful and the article was listed, yet I automatically received a notification that it had failed. I think the problem was because the GA1 fail, from years back, was still there at the top of the article talk page (since removed). I don't usually value accolades too highly, but this of all articles took a huge amount of work – and, well yes I would like the result recorded on my talk page. Is it possible to send a second (pass) notification, perhaps? Thanks, JG66 (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

These notifications are delivered by a bot, which seems to have gotten confused, but the reviewer already addressed this by removing the fail notification and replacing it with his own personal message. --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

"Good article" and similar redirects now at RfD

The following redirects, Good article, Good Article, Good articles, and Good Articles, have been relisted into Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 20#Redirects to Wikipedia:Good articles, where you are invited to discuss them. Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:W. G. Grace/GA1

I think an experienced editor and reviewer should consider this review by someone who joined the site as recently as 16 July 2017 and has not exactly distinguished himself, especially when he places stuff like this on another user's talk page.

I will make no comment about the review here. I merely ask that someone who is fully conversant with WP:GAC decides if the review should stand or if the nomination should be restored. Thank you. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone interested or is this yet another complete waste of time? Jack | ^{talk page} 11:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I looked at it, and the review seems reasonable; it follows the criteria and explains specific reasons for passing or failing each one. Regarding the major objection in the review, the article is rather long (over 10k words of prose, despite having 17 sub-articles), and seems to contain excess detail. --RL0919 (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Dividing American football GAs

I think American football GAs should be divided and listed the same way as every other sport: a section that lists teams, events, venues etc, and a section that lists biographies. The current setup of "pro" and "college" is problematic due to the potential for overlap. Lizard (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do it if there aren't any objections. Lizard (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bot

How long does it usually take? It's not a major malfunction, but I don't think I've seen it take over 1.5 hours before. — fortunavelut luna 08:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Further to this, a few articles I passed last week are still lacking their GA symbols i.e Guilden Morden boar. Was it my mistake or the bots?--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Query on inactivity of nominator

Can anyone say, what should be the action taken by a reviewer when the nominator does not responds to the comments even after pinging the nominator personally? RRD (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You could post to their User talk page; they might not have notifications turned on for pings. If they haven't been active on WP, then perhaps extend the hold time a little to see if they return. Ultimately, if there are concerns that the article doesn't meet the GA criteria and they aren't available to address them, then fail the review. --RL0919 (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2017

It says the name of the band is polka tulk blues company, but only when I look it up on google KidFlersh (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Categorization of public aquariums

I've just nominated article Monterey Bay Aquarium under the Places category because, although it doesn't fit the description of Places, Tennessee Aquarium was recently promoted into the category. There seems to be a hole with some museums, because art and history museums can go in "Art and architecture" and "History", respectively, but should all zoological institutions go under Recreation's "Stadiums, zoos, public parks, and amusements"? Currently, this may only affect Edinburgh Zoo, Navajo Nation Zoological and Botanical Park, Phoenix Zoo, Prospect Park Zoo (all under #Recreation), and Tennessee Aquarium. But if a natural science museum such as the National Museum of Natural History were to be promoted to GA status, which category would it belong in? (Apparently Rice Northwest Museum of Rocks and Minerals is under Earth sciences' "Geologists, geophysicists and mineralogists"…)

I think that zoological institutions should either be…

• in a separate subcategory of Recreation (e.g. "Zoological institutions", outside of the whole stadiums and parks one);
• in a new category under topic "Sports and recreation" (e.g. "Zoological institutions" or "Miscellaneous museums"); or
• in a new category under topic "Natural sciences" with other natural science museums (e.g. "Zoological and natural science museums")—I personally think that cultural organizations shouldn't be lumped in with stadiums and roller coasters anyway. – Rhinopias (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Moved into Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation § Recreation. – Rhinopias (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2017

Nickyjamelcangri40 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2018

Dreamswriter13 (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC) 

genres:action, adventure, sci-fi,thriller

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Good articles. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you did intend to request a change to this page, please clarify your specific request and make it in the form of "Change X to Y". ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018

jack frost en frozen 2 si .

190.238.207.182 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Grammatical problem with GA banner

Hi, this is just a heads-up about a grammatical problem with the GA banner, which I've raised at the relevant template talk. In at least one instance, the template is producing the indefinite article "a" when it should be "an". I'd be grateful if anyone were minded to have a go at fixing it. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Good Article log ???

I suggest we remove the link on this page to Good Article log. The page that this link goes to has very little interest because it is not maintained (and seems to never have been complete, and seems to not have been maintained for several years). --Ettrig (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Album title format in GA list

Is the standard for disambiguated titles to include the disambiguation in the visible part of the link, or not? I see both styles used in the list. E.g. should it be ''[[Yellow Submarine (album)|Yellow Submarine]]'' or [[Yellow Submarine (album)|''Yellow Submarine'' (album)]]? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The title with the disambiguation more accurately represents what article has been listed, so I would prefer that. --RL0919 (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for 2nd opinion

Hi, I've requested a second opinion on an GA review I was doing here: Talk:Armin_T._Wegner/GA1#Second_opinion_request. I wonder if an experienced volunteer could have a look and advise on the best course of action. Thank you. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Talk:The Greenock stowaways/GA1

@BlueMoonset: Any chance can you through this piece of incomptence in the trash and put the GA back in its original place in the queue? Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, you might want to bring this up at WT:GAN rather than here, since that's where issues about the nominating and review process go. It certainly looks like a new GAN reviewer who has dived in with enthusiasm yet with some ideas that just don't fit, and a reluctance to listen. The bit about "said" and "says" needing to be avoided at all costs is simply wrong, and not a good idea in prose in general. (One doesn't want only to use it because overuse and repetition don't make good prose, but it is the best, most accurate word in most cases.)

If the article had been nominated months ago, it might be more urgent to retain its place in line, but it was nominated on August 5, not very long ago at all. And in at least one respect, it does fail to meet the GA criteria: the lead is merely a tiny paragraph, when per MOS:LEAD it should be at least two and very probably three paragraphs that cover the main points of the article, since it is over 28,000 prose characters, and 30,000 is the dividing line between two to three and three to four paragraphs.

My suggestion is that you renominate it as soon as you can expand the lead; it's not like the Miscellaneous section has many entries, and the other one is already under review. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me just add two more things: The first is that I don't really understand why there's a "The" in the article title. As far as I can tell, it's Greenock, not The Greenock. Secondly, this was certainly a poor review by an editor who didn't know any better, but with dwindling editor numbers can we really afford to scare off enthusiastic newcomers by lashing out at them when they make mistakes? Otherwise, I'd say, yes, just renominate the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

GA review started by mistake

Hey everyone, an editor has by mistake started the review for 1982 Formula One World Championship. Can someone reset this? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zwerg Nase: Because strictly the review has begun (if erroneously) I think the "reviewer" has to fail the nomination. Having said that, I'm sure I've seen BlueMoonset put other articles back in the list according to seniority before now, so perhaps there is a way. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, I have put the review page up for speedy deletion, so the page should be gone soon. Serial Number 54129, there is nothing to prevent errors like this from being cleaned up. Review page deletions happen more frequently than you're aware of: nominators open review pages for their own reviews, people accidentally open a page when they only mean to comment, not review, and reviews are opened and then abandoned before any actual review text is written. Sorry I wasn't around yesterday when this came up. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks as ever BlueMoonset, useful to know. So, next time, just tag G6? The only thing that stopped me (doing anything, it must be said) was the whether the candidate would lose it's position in the queue, which I know I've occasionally seen avoided (somehow) before? Anyway, thanks for mopping* up here. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 16:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

*Sweeping, I suppose really!

Serial Number 54129, so long as the GA nominee template doesn't change its date (and there's no reason to change it), the nomination retains its place in line. The only other bit of clean-up has to wait for the speedy to be completed, and that involves removing the "onreview" value from the GA nominee's status field. (If you try to remove the status before the page is deleted, the bot will cheerfully add it again, since the existence of a review page is what causes the bot to do the add of "onreview" and the transclusion of the review page.) I've just now removed "on review" from the article's talk page, since the review page has already been deleted. (It usually doesn't happen this fast.) There wasn't a transclused review page on the article talk page, since you'd already deleted it (and it was malformed, besides). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

New divide

1. Agriculture, food, and drink : Move Food and drink into 1 article

2. Engineering and technology : Move Transport into 1 article

3. Natural sciences : Divide into 4 articles: Biology and medicine · Chemistry and materials science · Earth sciences+Physics and astronomy

4. Social sciences and society : Divide into 6 articles: Culture, sociology, and psychology · Education · Economics and business · Law · Magazines and print journalism · Politics and government

2001:EE0:4141:268D:90C5:122C:7EF4:600F (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018

Alysahk20 (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I think Hiltler should be known as a jerk who killed Jews who deserved more in life!!!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Brian Kershisnik

Did Brian Kershisnik get missed with some update process? The review passed, but the WikiProject tags were not updated (I just did today), nor does it seem to have shown up on Wikipedia:Good articles/recent. Chris857 (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ricky Megee categorization

Where should this article go in the list of good articles? He was an Australian notable for being accidentally/criminally stranded in the outback for 71 days. Serial Number 54129 thinks it could be categorized under explorers, but I'm not sure. Thanks in advance. Catrìona (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather that was phrased "Serial Number doesn't have a clue about where to categorise it, but "Explorers" is as close as his slow brain can get"  ;) but yes, the question does rather sum up the problem. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: sorry to bother you again (the page seem to have quietened down a fair bit). Would you have any advice over this? I dont think Catriona (courtesy ping) can pass this until we settle it. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Catrìona, Serial Number 54129, there is a miscellanea section here, and I think this may be the place to it, since Megee wasn't an explorer, he was stranded and had to survive. If there were a survival category, even somewhere else, perhaps he could go there. But I don't think this GAN should be delayed to figure out where it ought to go; if it's ready for passage, then it should be passed without any delay. If there's any concern over whether this belongs in Explorers, then put it into Miscellanea for now, and there can be subsequent thought about whether it belongs elsewhere. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)