This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome!
Hello, Hamiltonstone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Congratulations for your excellent work on Australian Senate. See you around the place . . . Slacspeak up! 11:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
G'day
Good work on your new articles Hamiltonstone!
You asked several questions. One of your questions was about external links to businesses. I suggest you have a look at WP:EL for the policy about which external links are acceptable. If they do not meet this policy then simply delete them, putting WP:EL as the reason in the summary box.
As for stub articles, I think the answer to how long before a stub is no longer a stub is an art and not a science. If you think that there is no more to say about the subject then simply remove the stub tag and Bob's your uncle. Most things on WP are subjective and that's why we spend so much of our time arguing about thngs. At least WP:civil keeps it all quite pleasant. Another policy you might want to keep in mind when editing other articles (I note that you do yours well) is WP:REF.
Any more questions please ask! Cheers, Gillyweed 12:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sleep
Don't forget to go to bed! Gillyweed 14:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Michael eather
I sorted out my problem - RTFM as they say... hamiltonstone 00:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Michael Riley
You are getting good at writing these! Most impressive. Do you know anything about his death? Gillyweed 05:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the feedback. He suffered ill health, but despite repeated references to this and to his premature passing away, plus one tangential comment from a friend in Sights unseen about how they came to know well the Dialysis Unit at a Sydney hospital, i haven't turned anything up regarding Riley's death. Croft writes for example:
Unbeknownst to many, Michael’s health had suffered badly, with extensive periods of hospitalisation and a couple of very close calls. In fact, after one particularly bad turn where he had to be resuscitated, I remember visiting him at night, and seeing him asleep in his darkened room. Disturbed by his thinness, I wrote a note at the Nurses Station and went to leave it with him before departing without disturbing him. However, when I re-entered his room, he was awake and he grabbed my arm, whispering so softly that I had to lean down to hear him: ‘I’ll tell you what I saw on the other side’. Not wanting to tire him and perturbed at what he might tell me, I reassured him that he could tell me during my next visit when he felt better. We never had that conversation as he could not remember my visit, but whenever I look at cloud I feel as if that is the trace of his vision.
Commercial gallery links on artist entry pages
Links to galleries selling the works of particular artists seem to me to be inconsistent with Wikipedia policy on external links. At the very most, it is possible to link to a directory of outlets for Australian Indigenous artists, and in most cases, as a last resort, a link to an Indigenous owned and controlled not-for-profit centre that supports the relevant artist may be feasible. Most artists notable enough to warrant a WP entry will probably have a work or works, and/or biographical info, accessible through a public gallery site. For these reasons, I intend to patrol Australian Indigenous art entries and keep removing such links. I will try to remember to insert a link to this page so people can read about why. I'm also happy to discuss this if wikipedians have different views :-) hamiltonstone 09:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:SIG#Internal_links and consider including a link to either your user page or talk page in your signature. I noticed this because no signature link causes an error in the bot that generates the WP:GAC report. Regards, LaraLove 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is what happens when I type four tildes - it seems not to create a live link and i can't work out why: hamiltonstone 00:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, changed my preferences and trying again: hamiltonstone 00:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for drawing this to my attention Lara. Do you think I should revisit the GA nomin page to redo anything there in some way, or should I just let things take their course? hamiltonstone 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheryl Craig
It now looks like her husband has popped in to recreate the article. This seems a persistent bunch! Still no notability proven however. I have now proposed speedy deletion! Gillyweed 04:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
ASC
Hi and congrats on ASC becoming a good article. Please do upgrade the WikiProject quality assessment to GA. You're right, there used to be a little symbol on the GAs, but not any more, although it may come back at a later date. For more general info on GAs please see WP:GA. And, BTW, have you seen Renewable energy in Iceland, which is a GA now. Thought it may interest you. regards, Johnfos 03:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure
I appreciate your comments. I do not believe the anonymous user is acting in good faith. I've been tired of it for a long time. I'm trying to work on the article is all. I don't think this user has read much more than some news articles. If the user had a strong understanding of the subject and there was collaboration it would be different but the user's contribution is confined to commentary. I spent two days reformatting the references and the jerk found something bad to say about it. I could understand mentoring. I'm cool with mentoring but passive aggressive harassment doesn't qualify. The assumption of good faith has long since been buried under a pile of BS. But on the lighter side of things I appreciate your comments and I look forward to you joining the page. Mrshaba 01:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there... The solar energy page has been coming along slowly but surely. Unfortunately, issues with an Anonymous editor have continued and I think the page is being held down. I've tried Rfcs and notices on Admin boards but I'm not getting any resolution. I don't understand. I think there's a clear case of disruptive editing going on but I can't seem to find an admin to give the issue a go. Do you have any advice? Mrshaba 10:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I dropped in on the page and its history, and it didn't look too bad to me. There may be some conflict, but that's mostly how these things are. It wouldn't surprise me if admins are tied up with pages that are seeing much heavier interference. Two of my favourites - John Howard, the Australian PM, where every word was an edit war as the elections approached; and Griffith University, infested by people with particular views about either student politics or the quality of teaching... Compared to these, I think solar energy is coming along well thanks to your contributions and others. Debate about stuff seems pretty routine and runs best when everyone plays nice (which, true, isn't always the case!). The solar energy page does seem to get a lot more vandalism than other pages I monitor, but everyone seems pretty on top of it in terms of reversions. I haven't got much to suggest except just keep plugging away, any maybe kick back occasionally and work on something else for a while before coming back to it. Best wishes hamiltonstone (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Kahun Papyrus
Hamilton, thank you for the Wikipedia talk comments on the Kahun Papyrus. The KP reports scribal arithmetic progressions, the highest arithmetic metaphor known to Middle Kingdom scribes. John Legon, an Egyptologist that loves ancient math, wrote a 1992 journal paper on this text. The contents of the Wikipedia article closely follows Legon's 1992 paper, hence no original research has been added by myself, or anyone that I have read.
Concerning you suggestion that I write a Kahun Papyrus Wikipedia article for high schoolers, there is a major barrier to such a task. How can anyone go beyond the modern base 10 decimals metaphor and discuss ancient Egyptian fraction arithmetic outside of modern arithmetical expectations (or modern pedagogies - to use the teaching threads associated with k-12 education)? Egyptian fractions defined a method of writing fractions that lasted for over 3,400 years, ending when modern base 10 decimals replaced it in 1585 AD. The pre-base 10 decimal hisitory is murky, hence few have written on it clearly, listing all its wandering details, one being arithmetic progressions. For example, only in 2002 had the 1202 Liber Abaci been 100% translated into English (by Sigler, a scholar that died before all the appropriate footnotes were inserted). That is, only in the last five years has medieval Egyptian fraction arithmetic been made available to the average reader.
My view is: everyone should report Egyptian fraction texts as written, and let the reader, from whatever age (high schooler to univ. grad) scramble to re-educate himself or herself to the scribal level of arithmetic. If asked to formally prepare a lesson plan on this topic for high schoolers, I would begin with the 1202AD Liber Abaci and show its seven Egyptian fraction methods (listed on pages 124-125 of Sigler's translation), four of which date to Middle Kingdom and the KP. John Legon only reports the KP as a single text, without placing the text in its wider historical continuum. The proposed 'original research' that you spoke of, possibly related to myself, only links the ancient KP text in new ways to other ancient texts, all leading to Fibonacci's methods (learned from Arabs, who learned from Greeks, who learned from Egyptians). Each text, at any time, in any culture, says what it says related to its practical issues. The primary modern problem to fairly read any era's mathematical text is to fairly link that text the appropriate ancient texts that disclose the text's simplest and most complex theoretical aspects.
Hamilton, the Kahun Papyrus article has been amended, hopefully improving its readability along the lines that you have suggested. The deeper issue of the Liber Abaci and 3,400 years of continuous use of Egyptian fractions and their unique form of arithmetic progressions can be delayed to another day. I am trying to keep it simple. Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) Milo 11/26/07
Thanks Milogardner. Though still quite technical, i think the page has been greatly improved by your editing efforts - good job! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Democrats
I see we've had an edit timing clash in which you made some sensible minor changes while I was axing POV slabs. Post hoc, I can't find much disagreement with your edits and hope you don't view my coincidental action as an attack on them. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know - i think i have fixed what minor damage there was...hamiltonstone (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC).
Bios need work
Hi Hamiltonstone. You said on the John Howard talk page: "The thing my background reading for this highlighted most of all was how we could all do some work on political bios in WP - they've a long way to go.". I was curious what you meant. I thought I'd ask you here, as it is diverging from the subject of New Guinea plantation interests. Thanks, Lester 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi and sorry for delay - sometimes I don't log in for a while. I just thought most bios of Oz political figures in particular are brief, sketchy, heavily focussed on recent events. Even Howard bio relies mainly on news articles even though there are several books about him. There's almost no pre-public life background for any but the most well-known figures. See, eg, the bio on Clem Jones, where, even given recent obituaries, there's no mention of parents, pre-mayoral life etc. On the whole I don't think we turn to books or scholarship much when we're editing WP. But still, the stuff that's here is an impressive collection regardless. And its up to us - if i want to see more book references, I know what I need to do :-) cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that more book references would help the articles. The recent biography John Winston Howard is now in most local libraries, if you're interested in reading it, there's a list on the net that shows which local libraries it is available in. Another way to access books is Google Books, but they don't give the whole book online. Still, you can still find some valuable information that way, and it has the advantage that others can click on the reference and see the book's text. I notice on the talk pages you are good at making interesting points and expressing them very well. On the J.H. article (New Guinea issue), it seems that journalist David Marr got most of his information from a previous article in the PNG Post-Courier newspaper, which makes an interesting read. I've been trying to see if others with opposing views to my own can suggest ways of compromise, however, nothing has come up yet. It may need to go to the Mediation Committee again, which is not a bad thing, as the discussions then take place with a mediator to make sure that it remains on-topic and civil. I think it could be a better way for everyone to express their ideas. Cheers, Lester 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There's also the book "The Howard Factor" edited by Nick Cater and "Australian Prime Ministers" edited by Michelle Grattan if looking at Howard. Orderinchaos 20:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
Request for Mediation
Hi Hamiltonstone, I've listed the John Howard / PNG Copra issue again for mediation. It's voluntary to attend. A mediator will allow everyone to present their views, while keeping a lid on the sort of incivility that occurs on general talk pages. I hope you participate. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Howard to indicate whether or not you wish to participate. Thanks, Lester 06:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Tingari
On 20 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tingari, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Happy to help. :-) For B and GA class, the short answer is more. Detail on his time as President of the Farmers Association would be useful as a background to his politics other than party rules. Where did he go to school? Did he go on to further study? Did he get involved in local politics? Some balance would be desirable, although it is difficult as publications do not tend to write stories about politicians quietly doing their job. Some minor POV has crept in with terms such as "rocky" and "popular". These should be cited and if appropriate, attributed. An infobox would be a good addition as well. Hope this has helped. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 09:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Notes (for self as much as anything) - No record located on school. No further education. No local politics that I have found, other than the NSWFA. NSWFA unfortunately don't have a history or past office bearers online. Will see what else I can find. Will try and tweak the POV etc, but his career as minister really did seem to be defined by less-than-stellar events - seldom of his own making, I might add in mitigation. Infobox done. Thanks again. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much!
G'day Hamiltonstone, Thank you so much for the barnstar. It made me blush. I hope I can keep up with expectations! Cheers, Gillyweed (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear you've done your first GA review, and very fair review at that! Yes, it would be good if you could see your way clear to adding some more content please. Oh... I don't think the FGAN template came out correctly on the page; are you able to fix it or would you like me to do it? Thank you for reviewing. Johnfos (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your interest in
Gunnfrídur Jónsdóttir. Your ideas are all good. I was a bit disapointed that you removed the rimster bit. A rimster is a Icelandic term for a poet who is not quite a serious poet. Icelanders take their poetry seriously. In English a limmerick might be the sort of thing he'd produce. I wrote the article because I had a picture of her statue , having picked up an old book (no date, Ca. 1952) about her in Windsor, Ontario. Unfortunately, it is in Icelandic, a language that I have little experience in. Fortunately my father translated much of it for me, at least enough to get the article that is there out. Looking through the book I notice the name of another Icelandic sculptor that I have since done an article about and so am going to assume that he was her teacher for a bit and will probably add him and a link. And so it goes. Life is supposed to be interesting Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Spurred on by your description of the word, I looked it up in our huge 2 volume Shorter Oxford Dictionary. Initially I drew a blank, but then found rhymster or rhymer, with the meaning as you described (the words being of 17-18th century origin). So - I will edit a version of that back in... And, indeed, so it goes. Good to hear from you. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice move. Nice link. Oh yes, I am - among things - a rhymster, only now I can spell it. My Dad came up with the word while translating from the Icelandic and I just went with his spelling. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Preselection DYK
On 25 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Preselection, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
for your efforts with Australian articles Gnangarra 01:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Congrats Hamiltonstone! Well deserved. Gillyweed (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Dummying
Hi Hamiltonstone. I was a bit over-excited and added a Wikilink to your Copra draft. Take a look. It was a bit bold of me to edit in your workspace, so please revert it if you please. Thanks, Lester 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. That's fine - I wasn't aware of the piece you'd started on that and, though I've only glanced at it, looks promising. If I'd known I'd have linked it in. But i wasn't going to do a full-blown formatting and referencing of the sandbox piece, partly because it's early in the mediation process etc and partly because I wasn't sure how we might end up pasting it in even if it use of some new text on this was agreed. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
To me, the whole Copra thing is an interesting story. It's an especially big part of Papua New Guinea's history. That's why the PNG Post Courier devoted their whole front page to the Howard family interests when it came to light some years ago. In fact, their article pre-dates the David Marr piece. I believe the high-level government inquiry was deleted from the Lyall Howard article.Lester 23:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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.
G'day Hamiltonstone, could you do me a favour and tell me if the external links on the article noted above work for you? I get an error message but the editor claims they work. Thanks Gillyweed (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Just checked, and they all worked for me. Three photos and an image of a witness statement. All looked real enough, though what I know about the Kennedy assassination could be written on a Minite wrapper with room to spare... cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Most peculiar - I can't get access to them. Thanks for confirming it though. I also know nothing about Kennedy's assassination. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
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.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:AubreyGibsonRosebowlJacket2.JPG}
Thank you for uploading Image:AubreyGibsonRosebowlJacket2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
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.
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
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) 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
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)?
Hi Hamilton, Enjoyed reading this article and will look forward to any further contributions from you... cheers, Johnfos (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
For your comments. I see you have worked on the Radwaste article too. Glad to be of some assistance. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008
The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
