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.
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!
I'd like to invite you to join the Christian Music WikiProject. We are currently looking for new members. With your help we can make it one of the best WikiProjects. Remember, cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards, Addbot (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
"Move from WP:CCM to new WP:Christian music"
Mate, are you doing that template migration manually? It looks like a lot of work. I'd recommend you get yourself a copy of AWB or better still ask a bot operator to do it. Ask at WP:Bot requests or ask me if you need further assistance. --kingboyk (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it simply a matter of replacing every{{WikiProject Contemporary Christian music}} template with {{Christianmusic|Contemporary Christian-work-group=yes (and whatever parameters were already there)? If it is, don't do it manually I'll either do it with my bot or arrange for somebody else to do it. You'll be taking hours if you do it manually! --kingboyk (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just setting up now. --kingboyk (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Thankful.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 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) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Overhill Cherokee and HT articles
If you get a chance, glance over the Overhill Cherokee article and make sure it looks GA ready. I'll make a few additions to the Henry Timberlake article this week.
While I doubt there is a photo of Timberlake available, if you can find a copyright-free image of the 1765 cover of his book, that'll work just as well. We could also use copyright-free images of the Holston River anywhere downstream from Sullivan County (the one on Wikipedia is upstream) and a portrait of Ostenaco (I'm pretty sure one exists), if we can find them. Bms4880 (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Timberlake article
This book cover has a sketch of a colonial on the cover, but I'm not sure if it's Timberlake or even contemporary. If it's a contemporary sketch of Timberlake, then it's out there somewhere in the public domain.
As for the article, I would suggest we have one section for a brief biography and another section describing the journey to the Overhill towns in-depth. The trip to London might cover a third section, or at least a subsection. Bms4880 (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I've expanded the article. I found another mistake in my notes-- the "dance" took place in front of Citico, not Chota, so I corrected it. Feel free to pare down any part that looks too long or unnecessary. The GA reviewer will likely demand that the lede be expanded.
We may need to add the editors' names to the Memoirs citations, since we're citing two different editions. Bms4880 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Timberlake article — GA status
I diversified the sources, added a photograph of the Holston Valley, and moved the map to the top (I also expanded the lede). I think that satisfies the GA criteria. Our last day is Sunday, if you see anything that needs to be changed. Bms4880 (talk) 22:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Template issue
I fixed the {{Christianmusic}} template issue. The articles are now going to the correct categories. I made a small error in the code which I repaired this morning. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sandramccrackenbestlaidplans.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sandramccrackenbestlaidplans.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sandramccrackenthecrucible.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sandramccrackenthecrucible.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Hey, I saw you were going through and changing the importance tags on all of the articles, and I have to say, I'm entirely confused. Are you changing all bands, singers, etc. to low importance? If so... why? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christian_music/Assessments#Importance_scale, has a system for importance which I've been attempting to follow as I have been rating things, and bands such as dc Talk are certainly far more than a low according to that scale. -- PEPSI2786talk 20:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I was making adjustments to the importance categories. We seem to be all over the map on the importance ratings. We have GA-class and Stub-class articles marked with High importance. I jumped in with both feet and decided to rate the importance as follows (hope it makes sense):
Top importance = The article is about one of the core topics of Christian music (i.e. Christian music
Mid importance = The article is significant in multiple areas of Christian music (i.e. various record labels, news and magazine articles, etc.)
Low importance = The article is about a highly specialized topic (this is where most of our article will probably be)
I was trying to organize the most important articles to the project so those can be the focus of our efforts. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Importance Ratings
My only concern is that your rating system is a bit too bottom heavy. Perhaps combine the top two categories into Top Importance, move Mid up to High, and add in a Mid category for extremely important aspects within one of our areas, such as famous bands, or whatever, and let the low importance stuff include the less important bands. I don't think it's right for a band like dc talk or Jars of Clay to be rated as low importance, when it's going to be getting a lot more traffic than a band like Blaster the Rocket Man, and therefore needs to be of a higher quality. -- PEPSI2786talk 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I moved the discussion to the project's discussion page. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 11:00, 30 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.
Thanks for the barnstar. I'll add info. to the HT article as I come across it, and await the GA review. Btw-- I read something that said Louis-Philippe's brother made a sketch of Toqua while on their visit to the Tellico Blockhouse in 1797. If you come across a free-use version of this sketch, let me know. Bms4880 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
How come you are no longer interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeschooling? We actually just became an "active" WikiProject recently, and we could really use you. Let me know if you're still interested. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 15:47, 22 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.
Fair use rationale for Image:Derekwebbhowtokillandbekilled.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Derekwebbhowtokillandbekilled.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the first issue of WikiProject Ohio's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts. If you would like to suggest something to be included in the next newsletter please see:The Newsdesk
Project News
*New features have been added to the project banner. All articles now need to be assessed for importance as well as class. There are approximately 60,000 articles under Category:Ohio that still need the banner added to their talk pages as well.
Editors and Contributors Needed
*We are in need of editors for this newsletter. If you are interested please visit:The Newsletter Project Page. Also, the The Ohio Portal is seeking Wikipedians to nominate selected articles, sports teams, biographies, and images. The portal is also seeking maintainers.
Areas needing attention
Assessment requests: There may be Requests for assessment needing to be answered. To see new assessment requests as they come in, you can watch the assessment page.
Recently a number of Ohio related articles have achieved featured status. We at WikiProject Ohio would like the editors of those pages for their hard work.
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.
Why did you remove your name from the list of members of WikiProject Homeschooling? - DiligentTerrier(and friends) 16:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Creating albums
when creating album pages, please not that "singer-songwriter" is an occupation not a genre; i just had to go through every Derek Webb album changing them all. Ironholds (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note that I disagree with you. I see singer-songwriter as a genre as well as an occupation. I'll not go change them all back, because I really don't care enough about what genre someone on Wikipedia is listed under enough to change it. If you do, that's fine. Have at. But don't complain about it to me because we disagree. -- PEPSI2786talk 16:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
Yes you are correct, I could have been 'nicer' and I could have gone out and found the source for him, but I believe we look at the rest situation from entirely different perspectives.
I did not simply revert- if you look on the talk page there is a discussion about why I was reverting - It is my feeling that thats why there are talk pages to discuss differences in the article.
And yes, I did link to the appropriate policy pages so that he could read and know what 'the rules' are- I am of the feeling that thats what hyperlinks are for so that you dont have to reprint everything on every page.
And I also think it is entirely appropriate that when someone says they didnt do something because they 'didnt know how' that you show them to the place where people have put effort into making a clear 'how to' guide. (and if you notice, I also offered to make sure that even if he didnt want to put it in the proper format for the article that simply putting a link on the talk page would work.[1] )
So, I guess there are different ways of looking at the situation and different levels of 'nice' and it is nice to know there are nicer people than me out there.
Thanks for providing the source.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Ohio Newsletter
Issue II - May 2008
From the editor:
Here's Issue II of the project newsletter. We're trying to decide if this is sinking or floating. If you would like to contribute to next month's newsletter please jump right in at the News Desk! Have a great May.
The Ohio Portal
The maintainers of the Ohio Portal are looking to get it to featured status. They would like to ask all project members to help improve it any way they can. What needs to be done most is the supplying of selected articles and images.
There is a eight ton rock in Ohio that was removed from the Ohio River. This rock is known as the Indian Head Rock
Dating back to the early 1800’s, this rock was seen sticking out of the Ohio River and used as a navigational mark for barges along the river. The names of citizens from the town of Portsmouth, Ohio are carved into the rock from the late nineteenth a early twentieth centuries. Some of the names were of well known families from Ohio. They would swim out to the rock, have their picture taken with it or simply carve their names into it.
With the advent of the Locks and Dams along the Ohio River, the rock eventually was submerged, but the legend lived on.
A gentleman from Ironton, Ohio located the rock after searching a very long time for it, and he and a crew of scuba divers recovered the rock and took it to the shore to be donated to Ohio for historical value.
After hearing the news about the rock being removed, Kentucky introduced legislation against the removal of the rock. They also want the diver who found it to be prosecuted for removing the rock. Kentucky owns the greatest part of the land the river runs on.
Even the Army Corp. of Engineers got involved as to how to move the rock without damaging it. Kentucky wants to have it returned to the river.
Billy Massie
Article Assessment
Reedy Bot and ShepBot are currently hard at work tagging all of the Ohio articles. We may need to have an assessment drive when the bots are finished. Think of it as a late spring cleaning. Please note your opinions on the project talkpage if you would be interested in helping!
Over 10,000 articles have been tagged with {{OH-Project}}
Article Achievements
New Featured and Good articles
Ohio was listed as a Good Article nominee; the result of the nomination was Not listed.
If you know of a Wikipedian who has contributed a lot of effort to Ohio articles feel free to award the new Ohio Barnstar of Merit by placing the following code on their user talkpage.
Add a picture to an article in the list of requested photographs in Ohio ( 341 ) (Most towns in Ohio are still on the list) or improve one of the articles with no images.
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.
This is the third edition of the WikiProject Ohio newsletter. If you have any project announcements feel free to drop them by the NewsDesk. It's request that you watchlist our talk page; so you can chime in on current discussions. Have a great June!
The Ohio Portal
The maintainers of the Ohio Portal are looking to get it to featured status. They would like to ask all project members to help improve it any way they can. What needs to be done most is the supplying of selected articles and images.
Getting the Project Moving
WikiProject Ohio as an entity doesn't have as much action as other state projects. For this reason it has been proposed that the inactive WikiProject Ohio Townships be added as our taskforce. There is a !poll going on at WT:OH and your opinion is essential in the matter!
Stepshep has also proposed sending an invite to everyone in Category:Wikipedians in Ohio with an invite to join the project. If you are already a member you would not receive the notice of course. Once again, please note your opinion on the project talkpage.
The Central Avenue Historic District is a nationally recognized historic district located at 201 to 338 Central Avenue in Dayton, Ohio. It consists of late 19th and 20th Century Revival-style houses as well as late Victorian-style houses, which were all originally single-family residences.
Each month a new Ohio related stub is the selected article. If you have a new stub created feel free to nominate it at the NewsDesk.
Article Assessment
Reedy Bot and ShepBot are currently hard at work tagging all of the Ohio articles. We may need to have an assessment drive when the bots are finished. Think of it as a late spring cleaning. Please note your opinions on the project talkpage if you would be interested in helping!
'Over 15,000 articles have been tagged with {{OH-Project}} We have 5,000 articles that need to be assessed for class!
W. S. McIntosh Memorial Leadership Award was nominated at Afd.
The result was Delete
Homer E. Woodling and Robert F. Busbey were nominated at Afd.
The result was Keep
All Ohio High School Conferences were nominated at Afd.
The result was no consensus keep. There is an effort to improve these articles here.
Ohio Barnstar of Merit
If you know of a Wikipedian who has contributed a good deal of effort to Ohio articles feel free to award the new Ohio Barnstar of Merit by placing the following code on their user talkpage.
{{subst:The Ohio Barnstar of Merit|message}}
Article Importance Scheme
A new article importance scheme has been proposed at the assessment talk page. Please comment on the propsed system.
Add a picture to an article in the list of requested photographs in Ohio ( 341 ) (Most towns in Ohio are still on the list) or improve one of the articles with no images.
Coordinate with Ohio Portal to provide quality articles for use.
Place the {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|OH=Yes|OH-importance=}} banner into Ohio related articles and assess
This newsletter is delivered by bot to all project members of WikiProject Ohio. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter in the future or would like to receive it in a different format, please note this in the appropriate section at the NewsDesk. Thank you, §tepshep
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) 15:06, 26 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) 20:47, 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)?
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.
DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 15:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
