The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
Would you mind revisiting your recent edit to Template:Infobox Disease? It appears to have a negative impact upon the table formatting. --Arcadian (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Could you try the new coding I posted. I have tried it at User:Grcampbell/Sandbox using Template:Gcampbell test, and it looks flawless on a mac. If this works I will dbspeedy the test template I created. --Bob (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos* (t·c) 15:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk·contribs). Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.
Szia! Légyszíves benézni ezügyben, esetleg más apróságok miatt is, amelyek meghaladják a nyelv- és egyéb tudásomat. Kösz. OsvátA. —Preceding comment was added at 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Szia! Nézz rá erre, kérlek: [1]. Nem tudom, milyen robot (vagy mi) gyártja az új felhasználókat marokszámra, minek, és van-e jelentősége? Kösz! OsvátAPalackposta 15:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A magyar Unciklopédia elérhetetlenné vált. Ugyanakkor más nyelveken működik. Amiket megnéztem, (angol, orosz), azokról sem lehet átlépni a magyarra. Ki vagyunk cenzúrázva, vagy mi? Kérlek, intézkedj, ha tudsz. Kösz! OsvátA (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beindult. Kösz a segítséget. Előttem ez mind az irracionalitás világa, de nyilván jól van ez így. OsvátA (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Egyéb: képek nincsenek, illetve biztos azon a merevlemezen vannak, amit kiszedtek a szerverből, aztán lementek vele a kocsmába és ottfelejtették a pulton. OsvátA (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bizonyos magyarázatok itt: [2]. Ez lehet az a hely, ahol tárgyalóképes. Üdv. OsvátA (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mindennek dacára ma egyedül a magyar unci nem műxik. A maláj például igen. Isten azzal ver, ami a kezibe kerül éppen. OsvátA (talk)
Berci, légy szíves Carlbot ütni-vágni! Ma estére hét teljes nap hiányzik az Unciklopédiáról, s egyéb anomáliák is vannak, melyeket nincs kedvem se felsorolni, se megjegyezni. Nemcsak a szerverbe nyúlkálnak bele, henem a szoftverbe is talán? Jó lenne, ha benéznél az Unciklopédiára és átfésülnéd egy kicsit. Üdv. OsvátAPalackposta 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Szórakoztatásod céljából, hogy bele ne pistulj permanens vizsgaidőszakaidba, olvasgasd pihentetőnek: [4] ezt. OsvátAPalackposta 10:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Szia! Lehet ezt működtetni: [5]? Vagy hagyjam a francba? Üdv: OsvátAPalackposta 09:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Azóta egy jótét lélek megoldotta. De azért benézhetnél néha... OsvátAPalackposta 11:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Szia! Kérlek, nézz rá erre: [6], mert helyreállítanám, de nem merem. Nem fogom fel, nem okoznék-e valami macerás gubancot. Viszont használnám olykor közhír célra. Kösz. OsvátAPalackposta 06:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kösz a segítséget. Megcsináltam. És működik!!! Megnézheted. OsvátAPalackposta 16:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Szia! Az Unciklopédia (és személyesen én is) második napja szisztematikus rasszista támadásnak van kitéve. Kérlek, ha van időd, kukkants bele az eseményekbe. A humoromat nem vesztem el, de strapás és időigényes egyedül megbirkózni a gárdával. Kösz. OsvátAPalackposta 08:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ez a balhé – legalábbis egyelőre – lecsengett. Nem volt egyszerű ügy, de álltam az uncisarat.
Új kérdés: tudnád-e az Unciban aktiválni ezt a lehetőséget: <youtube>VIDEÓ KÓDJA</youtube>? Mert elvileg létezik. Kösz: OsvátAPalackposta 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wondered if you needed anything doing in particular on the medical portal? If so feel free to get back to me :) CycloneNimrod (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd happily help out with the 'Did you know..' if you want, I'd need a little reminder on how to archive it though. :) Hope things get slightly less busy for you! CycloneNimrod (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, thanks :) Good luck with your exams! CycloneNimrod (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, although I had nothing to do with the whole idea. I'm fine thank you, currently on a placement with a GP, which is somewhat boring and long hours. A lot on my hands generally. I just came back from 3 months of obs/gynae and paeds in England. How are you? Exams? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Szia, kedvenc pusztalakóm :) Rég láttalak. Ha ráérsz, megtennéd, hogy a MVK ZRt. cikket átmozgatod, ahogy a vitalapján kértem? A lusta külföldiek már vagy 2 hete basznak megcsinálni... Te meg néha mássz már vissza a huwikibe csak körülnézni, hogy mi van, hiányzik ám az ízes pusztai tájszólásod meg minden. Amúgy meg BUÉK. :) – Alenshatalk 21:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Köszi, puszták gyöngye :) Sok sikert az előadásaidhoz. (újabb lépés a Nobel-díj felé, mi? :) Wikitalit most mintha szerveznének Pesten, nem tudom, alig néztem be az elmúlt 2 napban. – Alenshatalk 15:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Melanoma malignum.jpg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Melanoma malignum.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status and move your entry to the Active list. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanztalk 09:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues".
During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help?
The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new.
This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings.
Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points.
The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't.
So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions:
Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article?
Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph?
Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting.
Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead?
If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section.
Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons.
Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion!
From the Editors
Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Since you were the first to sign this project I thought I should ask you. On the discussion pages of each of the different types of chromosomes (1,2,3...xy) and the article on chromosomes themselves, I have placed this on them and added a rank for each of them (start, stub...)
{{MedGen}}
Is that ok because chromosomes have a huge role in genetics--Juthani1 (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response--Juthani1 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. You are receiveing this message because your name appears on the WikiProject Councilparticipants list. The WikiProject Council is currently having a roll-call; if you are still interested in participating in the inter-project discussion forum that WT:COUNCIL has become, or you are interested in continuing to develop and maintain the WikiProject Guide or Directory, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Participants and remove the asterisk (*) from your name on the list of participants. If you are no longer interested in the Council, you need take no action: your name will be removed from the participants list on April 302008.
Hello there NCurese! Oops I answered your post on my talk pages (in February!) on the same pages - I see now the convention is to reply on the others!
I have just performed a quick analysis of participants on the med gen project, some are inactive, but I did notice that the others were editing general genetics based articles rather than specific disorder pages. I think we are scaring potential contributors off with the medical monica and have found at least three avid contributors who have or are looking for somewhere to call 'home' ( not to mention a few 'losses' in the past ). I can see the value of a specific 'disorders' project but not catchment area. personally I came to wikipedia because the info on HD from other sourcces was either incomplete, erroneous! or too complicated - I am not actually a geneticist by trade, so it sort of helps to draw my attention to innaccesable facts or inconsistencies. Generally I end up following various genetics articles in a circle to make sense of one ( gnoming as I go :) ).
So in conclusion, no t sure if we can drum up enough support to make 'medical genetics' and wikipedia does need a 'genetics' project, but it's necessary to keep the two projects tightly linked, which means making medgen a coproject, a subproject, or evolving it keeping the current work as a kind of taskarea/workforce piece... Leevanjackson (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to roll, just let me know if there are any tasks I can do / collaborate on to help ... Leevanjackson (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries I never expect anyone to be full-time! I agree about the genetics project on its own, now just to see how the council reacts LeeVJ (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk·contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk·contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Looking at the portal it may be easier on you to use the Random Portal Componet {{Random portal component}}. Hope that helps! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on settitng it up today. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started to put a dent into the selected article section, starting from today I have went back 60 to [edit] March 5, 2007 - March 12: Anabolic Androgenic Steroids, does ti seem to function okay so far? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Szervusz Bertalan! A Károly Doncsecz szócikket itt az angolon törölni akarják. Igyekszek pontosítani a forrásokon, s újakat is megnevezni, mert az egyik érv pont az, hogy nem megbízható a külső hivatkozás. Az egyik érv szerint az interneten nehéz anyagot találni Doncseczről, ez igaz, de róla leginkább könyvekben, újságcikkekben és televíziós műsorokban lehet forrást találni, ami érthető módon nem mindenütt érhető el. Kérlek segíts, szavaz ellene a törlésnek, mert ezt a cikket nem volt egyszerű így itt megírni. Doncsecz
Replaceable fair use Image:Malignant melanoma.jpg[edit]
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Malignant melanoma.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? (ESkog)(Talk) 20:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NCurse, I used to be on the list to receive notices about the latest MCOTW/MCOTF but it seems I don't get that anymore. Any chance of getting back on it? Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be quite a good idea, I think. It's just I tend to either be quite busy or quite forgetful to check the actual page so it'd be nice to have a regular notice. I'm sure other people feel the same! Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 08:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Berci, dumáljuk meg, hogy bizonyos időközönként, például havonta egyszer, adsz életjelt. Hátha néha szükség van rád (s ez bizonyára némi melegséggel tölti el szívedet) − az általad bürokratizált prodzsektekben . Üdv: OsvátAPalackposta 08:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kösz a választ. Bürokratát nem vállalok; nem vállalhatok, mert bizonyos ismeretekkel nem rendelkezem, és már nem is fogok (pl. angol nyelv bírása). Az olykor-olykor felbukkanó, általam megoldhatatlan problémákhoz kerestem, keresek megoldást. Alkalmasint persze hozzád fordulok. Hosszabb távon szükség lesz más bürokratára. Van egy-két tippem. Jelöltjeimmel ezt személyesen szeretném egyeztetni. Össze fog jönni. Szólok, ha ott tartunk. Üdv: OsvátAPalackposta 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics page, please join if you're still interested! At the moment it's pretty bare looking, but I figured everyone could chip in with things to add to the page. Madeleine✉✍ 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Given that rheumatoid arthritis is not getting an awful lot of input (and I personally have other things to work on), I was thinking of rolling over WP:MCOTW to long-term effects of alcohol. Do you agree with the choice, and how do you normally choose the list of people whose talkpages to spam? JFW | T@lk 12:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
==Carbon and Genetics== If you're interested in the subject matter matter of Carbon I suggest you read "The world of Carbon" by Isaac Asimov and if in Genetics "The Genetic Code" by same and he is a great contributor and explainer in both of these subject matters.WFPMWFPM (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Szia! Segítségedet szeretném kérni: ma nevet változtattam User:Immanuelről User:Gothikára. A globális regisztráció közben kiderült, hogy valaki már regisztrált itt ezen a néven. Később az is kiderült, hogy az illető örökblokkot kapott itt és a spanyol wikin is vandalizmusé miatt. Te admin vagy biztos tudod, nem-e lehetne az illetőt itt törölni, hogy tudjam itt is használni ezt a nevet? Köszi--85.66.62.70 (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember you saying that you leave a notice on the talk page of voters for which article has been selected. Would you mind if I went to WP:BOTR and requested if there was a bot able to notify all members of WP:MED which article has been selected? If this can be done, it'll save you time and everyone would get a notice. Just an idea :) Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk?Sign? 12:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Melanoma 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — scetoaux(T|C) 20:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you weren't notified of this, but User:ViperSnake151 went a step further and listed the image for speedy deletion. We dispute that the image is irreplaceable, because a free image can be made that would accurately convey the same information. — scetoaux(T|C) 02:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through your uploads again, and I have found Image:Superficial spreading melanoma 1 060619.jpg, which is both a replaceable and orphaned fair use image, so the image qualifies under TWO speedy deletion criterion. I have tagged the image for speedy deletion as such. — scetoaux(T|C) 03:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Melanoma 2.jpg)[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Melanoma 2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Was a bit worried about telling an admin that two of his uploads fail the necessary criteria, but that's pretty much that. Cheers! — scetoaux(T|C) 19:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I figured as much. :) — scetoaux(T|C) 19:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a member of a band would fall under Wikipedia:MUSIC. Any "blanked" member of the band should be re-directed to the main article for the band. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Szegedre gyere majd, puszták nukleáris átka. Nincs olyan messze a pusztádtól, hogy belepusztulj; és addigra a vizsgáknak is vége. – Alenshatalk 23:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Melanoma malignum.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
