The into include several statements that are arguable, opinions, certainly not provable facts. It seemed appropriate that, if all that stuff is acceptable as part of the introduction (as opposed to, say, a later paragraph entitled "Gretzky's Legacy" or something to that effect), then a fact that speaks to his status in the history of the game would makea worthwhile conclusion to the introduction.
Not sure if Gretzky is "the greatest player ever" but, insofar as statistics go, he has more records than anyone else. That's a fact, that should be considered as appropriate if not moreso, than opinions and arguments of his legacy. Why revert that? It's not as if something stupid was written such as "and he's voted the cutest hockey player by 13 year old girls", right? Dgaubin currently not signed in.
I reverted it because it was poorly worded, didn't flow with the surrounding material, and seemed redundant. Take it to the article's talk page and discuss it with the main editors of the page. Maybe there's some way it can be worked in. Quadzilla99 09:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed half sacks back to .5 since that's how they're always displayed on espn.com, books, football stat sites etc. Incidentally, how do you display that 1/2 symbol? I wanted to put something like that on the favorites line but didn't know how to do it. Do you know any place where we can get the coaching staff info? I can't find anything in the The New York Times archives or any of my old football history books. I know some of the basics just off the top of my head, but we would need a source anyway. Quadzilla99 05:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine either way — I just didn't want some math nut coming in and preaching "significant digits" or anything, since you can't have, say, .3 of a sack. Personally, 20½ sacks reads better, rather than the reader absorbing it as twenty-point-five sacks. I can understand the .5 popping up on the sites you mentioned, particularly for tabular material. Plus, until recently, the ½ symbol wasn't reliably reproduced on all browsers. This may also pop up in print media references, especially since the Associated Press in the 1980s could not transmit a slash character (it would indicate a command), and so it would render as 20 1-2 sacks and have to be fixed before typesetting. To generate the ½ symbol, there is a box of symbols underneath the "save page" button on the edit page. Just click, and it will be inserted in the edit window. If it is not working properly, or you need to generate it in another HTML environment, you can type ½ to generate the symbol.
The coaching staff — that was a good point made by the reviewer, as three (counting off the top of my head) assistant coaches became head coaches. I had a Giants media guide, but good luck finding that if it hasn't been thrown out. (I'll be in the attic this weekend, I'll check.) Other than that, I'll see if I can find something.—Twigboy 13:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts about Image:Ruth1926-3.jpg from 1926 World Series? That article is currently a GA candidate, and I intend on submitting it for FA, afterwards. I just want to know if there could be potential Criteria #3 issues with this article, as well. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to shorten section headings in Mark Whitacre article quite a bit. I made several editing changes in order to cleanup. I also made several cleanup editing changes in Solomon Bayley and Noel Perrin articles. I am still researching more references for Solomon Bayley. I also have interest in the Michigan Stones article and contributed to it some, but I cannot find many references regarding the Michigan Stones. Thanks for any suggestions as before. I appreciate any advice and know that you are busy.ReadQT 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at it later this week. Quadzilla99 09:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and whenever you get a few minutes.ReadQT 16:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, the pics are meant to make people feel hungry heh. on another note, it seems zodiiac has retired from wikipedia... sad. Chensiyuan 14:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a new parameter for use on images that a significantly taller than they are wide. Normally, all thumbs are set to the same width, so tall images have much more area than wide images. Upright makes the default width a little bit smaller, relative to normally shaped images, so that they don't end up disproportionately large.--ragesoss 21:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to find out if you plan on changing your weak oppose vote to the featured candidacy of the Carolina Panthers draft picks page. I think I've addressed all of your points, and it's running out of time and hasn't had quite enough support to make it. Thanks for your contributions to the FLC; I think they've improved the list above what I initially intended. AnthonyHit me up... 11:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Seems you are churing out an article a day. great going. Soon i am thinking, you can have an entire Featured Topics on the New York Giants. --Kalyan 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been quite a while since there has been any work on my comments for the GA nom. I understand that you are on a break and hence i am keeping the "GA on HOLD" status till atleast the end of the month or your return, whichever is earlier. --Kalyan 12:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't vandalism:[1], also inserting Canada just to be silly isn't either? I know what vandalism is btw. Quadzilla99 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes frustrated people do silly things when they think they're being treated unfairly, hence WP:BITE. As for Canada, he does point out on his user talk page that Steppenwolf were Canadian. -- Netsnipe ► 15:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not even a contributor to the page I just have it on my watchlist. But saying Heavy metal music didn't originate in the US or originated solely in the UK is absurd—Jimi Hendrix and Iron Butterfly are always considered some of the proncipal forerunners by every source I've read—and has been reverted by others as well. To me it's like saying President Bush is a woman, that's why I considered it vandalism. Maybe he hasn't read up on it as much and doesn't believe so. I could see how that might be the case. Quadzilla99 16:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! An edit summ to cherish.—DCGeist 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's superb, too. Next time...I mean, if there must be a next time...actually, it kind of makes me hope for a next time.—DCGeist 17:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Epic Barnstar
You've got a ton of decorations already and your volume of contributions to articles on the NBA and New York Giants are truly scary, but heck, you've been and continue to be an absolute asset to WP. Chensiyuan 21:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
both 1986 and 1990 made it to GA. The only thing pending is the Financial history article. ping me once you respond to my comments. Kalyan 08:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of creating a separate templates for the Giants' staffs and rosters during that period, I think it would be better to just copy the code from the template into the 1986/90 season pages. For an example, see 2005 New England Patriots season - the final roster. I suggest this because these templates probably won't be used anywhere else than in that page, so there's really no need to have a separate floating template. After you copy the code, then you can just put those templates up for deletion. I will be doing the same with Template:2007 New England Patriots staff. Pats1 13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It reduces the KB of the article. I'm eventually going for FA on both of those and plan to expand both of them. This will avoid complaints about the article being too long and allow me to expand it significantly. Quadzilla99 13:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry dude, I don't know what the hell happened with my edits. The first time, all I did was sign my name on the poll. I didn't highlight anything else or delete anything. The second time, my second reply, all I did was go to the very bottom of the page and type my reply. I've gotten into some disputes on here but I'm not a child and I'd never do shit like that intentionally. Especially since it'd be pointless, it'd be obvious and it would only hurt me. So sorry again, I don't know what happened. I guess I'll try to be more careful when I replied. I don't know how I did it accidentally, but it had to have been.Chris Nelson 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the embarrassment then, I was referring to the way Minority Report (film) stuck out like a sore thumb having nothing to do with sports. Let me know when you change your mind. — CharlotteWebb 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Sportsnet.ca, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Sportsnet.ca itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Quadzilla99. I took care of this for you, the editor didn't know what he was doing. Enjoy your break, I hope to see you back soon. Trevor GH5 06:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have awarded you this medal for your work in helping to reduce the backlog during the Good Article Candidates Backlog Elmination Drive. You reviewed five or more articles during the drive, which helped to contribute to the large decrease in the backlog. If you have the time, please continue to review articles to help make sure the backlog does not jump back up to what it was. Good job and happy editing! Nehrams2020 06:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After the failed FAC, I deleted the fair use image of J. R. Richard that you questioned (per WP:NCC). What do you think about this? I'm inclined to believe that it meets the first fair use rationale, since there probably are no free equivalents for this type of image. Please give your thoughts. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked about the quote: "Realizing time was short, Cohen went to Manhattan College—where he had a key to the equipment and locker rooms—and returned to the Polo Grounds at halftime with nine pairs of basketball sneakers, saying that "nine pairs was all I could get.""
In Steve Owen's 1952 book, My Kind of Football, he writes: Ray Flaherty suggested we use rubber soled sneaker shoes instead of cleats...that morning we tried to find a store open to buy sneakers. Failing, we gave up on the idea. But coming on to half time, I had the clubhouse boy call up Abe Cohen, a tailor who served as locker room attendant for Manhattan College. Abe was to meet my messenger at the gym and let him have all the sneakers available. Abe didn't have a key, so the lockers were busted open. He looted nine pairs." p. 227
Revmoran 14:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up . . . I have a strong suspicion that 69.208.210.158 [2] and 68.253.216.115 are sock puppets for blocked user User:TyrusThomas4lyf based upon the common theme for recent edits as well as the Chicago based IP. One indication of this can be seen by comparing [3] and [4] along with the edit summary at [5]. Another is [6]. I've notified two admins, but it's not clear what can be done with anonymous IPs. Myasuda 14:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the question here, because of Tony's unresolved copyedit concerns and the idea that someone would add an article they authored right after it passed with copyedit objections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.
Just occurred to me that I never thanked you for welcoming me!
GlassCobra has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I am a fairly new member to this project. I am trying to start a Serial Killer task force. I have found a few members who would like to join. Any suggestions on how to start one? What are your interests as far as Crime goes? Jmm6f488 23:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rock Springs Massacre. I have given this article some attention. I have outlined what I think is left to do before FAC. If you have the time perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at the article and its talk page? IvoShandor 10:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have went ahead with the FAC on this regardless. I will see what concerns are raised there, any should be easy to fix. IvoShandor 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:L.T..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. Abu badali(talk) 13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help on this article, it was promoted to FA yesterday. Here ya go...
The Original Barnstar
The Original Barnstar
For work relating to Rock Springs massacre which was promoted to featured article following several months of hard work and commentary of a number of editors, Quadzilla99 was one of these editors. IvoShandor 13:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! As I was telling Onomatopoeia and Zodiiak... while you guys are/were on break the NBA pages just go crazily ridden with vandalism (worse, editors purporting to make "good edits")... hope to see you back soon to help with the project! Have fun while on break though. Chensiyuan 14:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, a bunch of us at Wikiproject NBA have been working on the Tim Duncan article and have nominated it for FAC. Feel free to leave comments at the FAC here. Thanks! Chensiyuan 13:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)
We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.
This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page
New irc channel
Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .[reply]
Hello! A WP:LoCE copyedit was begun on this article about 6 months ago, but was not completed. Due to the volume of changes since then, I have removed this article from our current list of copyedit requests. If you would still like to have a copyedit, feel free to relist it on our request page. Thanks! Galena11 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're apparently retired, but I still wanted to award you this barnstar for your work on Michael Jordan since it's apparently today's featured article, and it definitely couldn't have happened without your input. Please come back btw!! Aaron Bowen 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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!
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:47Z
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.
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.
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.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. DarkAudit (talk) 23:10, 11 April 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.
As the playoffs continue, keep the 2008 NBA Playoffs article up-to-date.
Collaboration of the Month
Magic Johnson has been chosen to be our very first Collaboration of the Month article. Although this is article is already a Good Article, it still can be improved. The goal is to improve this article by the end of May so that it can be nominated for Featured Article status. In particular, free-use images should be found for the article, all Manual of Style guidelines should be followed, and a neutral point of view should be maintained throughout the article. If there is anything you can do to improve the article, then please help out.
I wanted to let you know that I intend to take the Bill Russell article to WP:Featured article review. This is something I've been planning to do for a while. I'll list my rationale at the FAR page shortly, and send you a message when that discussion is live.
Bill Russell has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Zagalejo^^^ 06:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in editing article related to the NBA, please add your name to the member list, if you have not already.
This Month in NBA History..
June 6, 1946 – In the Commodore Hotel of New York, the NBA is officially formed as the Basketball Association of America. Maurice Podoloff is named the first commissioner of the league.
Last month's Collaboration of the Month, Magic Johnson was a great success. A total of 560 edits were made to the article during the month of May, and the article was eventually nominated as a Featured Article Candidate. Although the article was not promoted, it was significantly improved through the work of many editors.
This month's Collaboration of the Month is Steve Nash. Although this is article is already a Good Article, it still can be improved. In particular, all prose should conform to Featured Article standards, all statements should be verified, and the text should be in a neutral point of view. If there is anything you can do to improve the article, then please help out.
Collaborator of the Month
The Collaborator of the Month is given to the editor with the most number of substantial, beneficial edits to the article chosen as the Collaboration of the Month.
This month's Collaborator of the Month award goes to Chensiyuan (talk·contribs). Although he had previously helped Magic Johnson to became a Good article, he made literally hundreds of edits during the month of May. For his contributions, he is rewarded with the NBA Collaborator of the Month Award.
However, all beneficial edits made by any editor was a help. Other members of the project that contributed to the article include:
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 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 categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
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.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May 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!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
I've left a comment on the WP:NYG talk page. If you get a chance to respond, it would be appreciated. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 12:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 2008 Home Run Derby took place yesterday. Justin Morneau defeated Josh Hamilton in the final round, 5 home runs to 3, although Hamilton broke a record with 28 home runs hit in the first round.
From the Editors
Baseball has a history unlike any other sport. It has been played in countless countries throughout the decades, and it will undoubtedly continue play for many more. On this eve, some the finest players the sport has to offer will take the field at the Yankee Stadium. Four popes spoke there, Pelé scored goals there, "The Greatest [football] Game Ever Played" was battled out there, John Philip Sousa lead a band there, George Costanza worked there; but what do all these events have in common? They fail to reach the level of greatness that the baseball that was played there did.
In 1923, a man named Babe Ruth decided to build a new house, and over the years, that house was a home to some of the greatest baseball ever played. If I were to list out all of these great moments, it would be longer than the bill for the New Yankee Stadium. So I'll sum it up by saying that we can remember these great moments by adding them to this place we've gathered at for future generations to read about, to learn about, to dream about; but more importantly we can watch tonight and we can remember how baseball is unlike anything else that we will encounter in our lives. — Blackngold29
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 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 (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
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.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July 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 Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
We apologize for not sending out our August newsletter, we have tried to cover some events of the month in this issue.
The playoffs have started! The Dodgers and Phillies have won their respective Division Series and will face off in the NL Championship Series. Both series in the American League have yet to be finished. Show your support for your favorite teams by keeping up with their season pages!
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Lana Stempien, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lana Stempien. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Jeffrey Jordan, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Jordan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussing relating to the use of boxer's nickname/s in the infobox. Please could you give your opinion here. Thanks.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Streetcars in Washington, D.C./GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.
GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Seems you are churing out an article a day. great going. Soon i am thinking, you can have an entire Featured Topics on the New York Giants. --Kalyan 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
