Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement
|Main page||Talk page||TAFI nominations||Holding Area||Schedule||Assessment||Automation||Accomplishments||Further collaboration||Members||Archives|
|This is the talk page for discussing Today's articles for improvement and anything related to its purposes and tasks.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12|
|Today's articles for improvement was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 21 August 2013. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 20 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|With moving the successful nominations to the Holding Area, users have to move the articles themself.|
|Item||This week||Next week||Week after|
|1. Weekly page created|
|2. Article specified|
|3. Picture/file chosen|
|4. Caption written|
|It is currently week 44 of 2014.to refresh the checklist.|
- 1 Choose the TAFI article for Week 46 of 2014
- 2 Week 38 & 39 recap - Ancient Roman architecture
- 3 Week 40 recap - International airport
- 4 Further Collab help request
- 5 Further Collaboration tab formatting
- 6 Galleries
- 7 Choose the TAFI article for Week 47 of 2014
- 8 shortcut
- 9 Choose the TAFI article for Week 48 of 2014
- 10 Archiving articles with 3 or less points
- 11 ???
- 12 Choose the TAFI article for Week 49 of 2014
- 13 Life sciences
- 14 Week 41 recap - Steak
- 15 Week 42 recap - Central America
- 16 Week 43 recap - Ice hotel
- 17 International airport
Choose the TAFI article for Week 46 of 2014
- Second language - 3 - will be archived
- National stereotypes - 3- will be archived
- Charles Rogier - 0 - will be archived
- Island of California - 14
- Adult - 9
- Wage - 9
- Fine art - 5
- Cold - 9
- Tourism in the Caribbean - 17
- Everyday life - 21 - will be scheduled
Week 38 & 39 recap - Ancient Roman architecture
This collaboration turned into an unexpected two week collaboration, because of an university course project related to the pizza article. The extra time did allow for some finishing touches on the article, especially on some sections that were still empty.
We started with a lede, some background context, two examples of Roman architectural features (dome and arch), some common building materials, common building types, and a section on lasting influence. By the end, we had a well developed background section for context, a long section on architectural features, expanded materials, a section on city design, and developed sections listing building types, infrastructures and decorative structures.
Thanks to all participants, @Northamerica1000:, @CSJJ104:, @Evad37:, @EuroCarGT:, @126.96.36.199:, @Dgcampbe:, @Afernand74:, @Qwertyus:, @Bgwhite:, @Cutest Penguin:, @Wallace McDonald:, and @Johnbod:. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note that the educational assignment related to pizza is now over , so the article has been rescheduled for week 45 - Evad37 [talk] 04:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Week 40 recap - International airport
This weeks collaboration started with a moderately developed article. A lede, a section on operations, a half dozen images, and a list on naming conventions. By the end, we had an improved lede, and a bunch of new or improved sections, including history, design and constructions, operations and management (with various subsections), and a split from the naming conventions list into another list of notable international airports organized by date, passengers and other, as well as the addition of almost a dozen new images.
Thanks to all participants, including @Finnusertop:, @EuroCarGT:, @Wittylama:, @Whiteghost.ink:, @Melonkelon:, @Rsrikanth05:, @Northamerica1000:, @Afernand74:, @Evad37:, @AuthorAuthor:, @David Condrey:, @SovalValtos:, @Wtshymanski:, @Andrewgprout:, @K7L:. Cheers everyone. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- There's only one major cleanup tag left on the article. I'm going to try to clean that up right now. Once completed, I think someone should set this article up for peer review. I can't because I already have a peer review active, if someone else wants to take the initiative.. David Condrey (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Further Collab help request
The peer review of Animatronics is starting to get some attention. Could use some assistance addressing review comments if anyone wants to help. I intend to nominate this article for FA after the peer review is over so if anyone does want to help, please keep in mind that the reviewers are going to be very picky, please do not add any content which could reduce the quality of the article. See Further collaboration. Review discussion is taking place on the review archive page which is also embedded in the further collaboration tab. David Condrey (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Further Collaboration tab formatting
I introduced some format improvements to the further collaboration tab, hope you guys like it. Just nested embedded sections within collapsable boxes and assigned colors based on whether or not it is closed or active. Using #FA97B1 (red) for closed, and #BAE3BD (green) for active. Also set a 10px padding. David Condrey (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
What's up with galleries? I've noticed, we seem to add galleries to articles just about every week. As I understand Wikipedia:Galleries the use of galleries in articles is likely to reduce the quality of the article. I've been trying to follow up on past articles that we work on so as to get them ready for FA or GA's and am just not sure if the galleries are ok or if they should be broken up. David Condrey (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Choose the TAFI article for Week 47 of 2014
- Military technology - 20 - will be scheduled
- Hammond Typewriter - 3 - will be archived
- Vegetarian cuisine - 9
- Hydropower - 4
- Pepperoni - 7
- Scale (music) - 5
- Ozone layer - 13
- Radio frequency - 2 - will be archived
- People - 5
- Technological evolution - 4
In regard to that whole archiving experiment, I just wanted to point out that clearing out the backlog by removing any articles that don't get high enough point does nothing to actually improving articles. Whereas something like my suggestion (having 7 TAFI articles at any one time, then each day removing the oldest and adding the newest, so each article still lasts for 7 days but drops down as it loses its shiny newness) would do more to actually improve articles efficiently. I draw your attention to
International Airport Ancient Roman architecture having a 2 week stint because of the Pizza issue, where nothing much happened to it in its second week. Removing articles without actually improving them is not a good idea, and simply sweeps an issue (relative slow improvement - 1 per week) under the ruf without attempting to find a solution. --Coin945 (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Seems that it was actually Ancient Roman architecture which had a two-week spell and not international airport. I would say that the articles scoring three or less points actually do not have sufficient interest to really benefit from the project's endeavour. A smaller backlog should in theory mean that the more interesting articles are sooner improved. C679 15:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Whoops that's what I meant. I knew that article X (whichever it was), did not get improved much in that second week.--Coin945 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think users are really voting for the best articles? It seems to me the articles most suited for communal improvement may not always be chosen, as the rationale for people voting for a certain article might not be taking into account what editing it will actually be like.--Coin945 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- The fact of the matter is that once an article loses its shininess, many people get bored and lose interest. If the majority of improvement is done in the first 2 days or so, then on the third day a new article should be TAFI, or be at the top of a list of TAFI articles. This way we get through more, faster. Multiple users spending an entire week on only one article is a waste of time.--Coin945 (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well what about the top two being scheduled, #1 for four days and #2 for the other three days. Would that enable us to work more efficiently at the project? C679 18:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see anything inherently wrong with the 'backlog', since last I checked, there were 4,621,839 articles needing improvements. The purpose of the nominating/3 supports/group of 10/3-2-1 system is to identify article that both need help and are would interest a large group of editors, and the idea behind the experiment is to cull some articles that don't seem to get a lot of support. My opinion about the experimentally culled articles is that although they might make good collaborations, there are just better choices. We can't improve everything all the time, and being overly ambitious can lead to failure, like the previous 10 article incarnation on the main page. Truthfully in the last 4 months we have had some really, really spectacular collaborations.
- Now that said, @Coin945: has a very good point about duration, that second week of Ancient Roman architecture really bombed. And the 'heavy lifting' usually gets finished in the first few days. The other side of it is that the real polish takes longer, often much longer, as demonstrated by some of the our articles like Micronesia, Raven Tales, Writer, Entertainment, Java Man and Animatronics, some of which could be at the GA level or higher (pending peer reviews).
- My actual plan for the project was to let the pending peer reviews finish, get at least one article listed as a GA or FA, and use that as leverage to take another run at getting back on the main page. We have demonstrated that the project is sustainable, we just need to get some serious peer reviewed results. I recognize the potential of having two articles a week, and actually think that might be a good idea now that we have successfully conquered one article per week. I am just reluctant to do it right when we could be on the cusp of getting major exposure on the main page again. However I could be convinced otherwise. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well what about the top two being scheduled, #1 for four days and #2 for the other three days. Would that enable us to work more efficiently at the project? C679 18:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Coin945: I know you would really like to increase number of articles we focus on per week, and I realize we may be missing out on potential editors to collaborate with, simply because that week's article doesn't interest them. Which method do you think would work best for our group? More articles, all starting on the same day (concurrent), or more articles starting on a different day of the week (staggered)? Forget the whole main page idea, that's just a pie-in-the-sky dream right now. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well truth be told, I don't actually tend to edit the TAFI articles much these days. (For one thing its a bit overwhelming when you have multiple fantastic editors working on one article and you're not sure what else you can contribute.) What I'm trying to say is that perhaps I'm not the best person to ask - you should speak to Whiteghost, Northamerica1000, David Condrey, and co. to ask what it's like from their perspective. My idea what to have a staggered system where each article stays TAFI for 7 days, but gets lower and lower in the chain (as it loses its shininess) until on the last day it is swapped for a new article. --Coin945 (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Monday: a,b,c,d,e,f,g
- Tuesday: z,a,b,c,d,e,f
- Wednesday: y,z,a,b,c,d,e
- Thursday: x,y,z,a,b,c,d
G.A. should be our minimum standard
I'm bad at explaining so I might break into analogies or song and dance.. who knows. But I wanted to share an idea that I have which I think could potentially do major things to improve our efforts and hopefully participation as well. With so many people working on 1 article, I feel like it's not really that unreasonable to expect that every article we work on as a group should be able to achieve at least good article status by the end of the week. I mean, we've got a lot of editing power behind us.. We just need to organize and utilize those efforts better.
It would look sorta like this:
................Week1....Week2......Week3.........Week4...........Week5 Research.|-- Steak -- Airport -- Architecture--America--------Hotel Clean..... |----------Steak-----Airport------Architecture---America-- Polish......|-------------------Steak---------Airport--------Architecture--
We've already got plenty of participation I think but ultimately, we should always strive to get more people involved as well because it only exponentially greaters the power of the group. Here are the potential issues I see which could affect that to start off with..
- Like mentioned, people lose interest because of the timeframe.
- On the other side of that, if articles were focused on for less than a week, some people might completely miss the opportunity to participate if they do not have time until later in the week. For example, I know myself sometimes I am around during the week, sometimes not, sometimes I don't have time until late in the week or weekend.)
- Not sure on how to phrase this one.. but I suppose.. for the less aggressive editors, it could be easy for someone to feel like they're not useful or intimidated if they make a few edits, and they see other editors making huge numbers of edits.
- On that point, its reasonable to assume that people working together in a group likely hope to be recognized for being a part of the group and for their contributions but it could be hard to notice the valuable contributions of one editor of their work is overshadowed simply by the mere volume of another editors contributions.
With these potential issues in mind, here's my idea for resolving them and for organizing efforts more affectively.
I've been trying to be somewhat aware of how articles progress and I was thinking it's pretty clear, at least for some, to tell what people tend to gravitate to in editing, and what people are good at, or at least seem to enjoy the most. Some people make a lot of copy edits and fixes, some always add images, myself for example I tend to spend most of my time adding new content and improving existing references as I go but my big thing is the new content.. I was thinking it could be more effective if people amongst the group identified what they enjoy doing and are good at and then build teams within the group to bang out articles in structured team format. Currently it's just kinda like all hands, go for it.. do whatever.. not a lot of direction.
Say we had 3 teams: 1 team of people who really know the Wiki guidelines and want to make sure the articles are shiny and clean. And a second team that wants to focus most of their attention on filling out any areas of the article that are lacking with new content and quality references. And we have one last third team of people who are really the core members who know Wikipedia really well who want to see the article all the way thru and get articles featured as the best articles on Wikipedia. Cleaners. Researchers. Polishers. Work with the team on that weeks goal, work on all 3 teams or 2 teams or just 1 of the teams if you want.. we have a don't ask don't tell hankypanky policy related to inter-team mingling. Finn don't look at me like that it makes me uncomfortable.. :p
Each week, each team works on 1 article per week, and the project as a whole works on 3 articles per week. The first week, is pure content. Anyone interested in the subject researchers and throws everything they can at the article to fill it out. Forget about making sure it's all error free and whatnot.. that comes later.. Just fill it out with everything you can find. At the end of the week, that team moves on to a new article and the Cleaner crew comes in and cleans up the mess, adds images, makes sure everything is in the right spot and pick out the irrelevant additions, etc.. All the info is there now so they just take the clay and mold it in to shape. The researcher team just finished their second article and the second week is over so cleaners move on to the second article, researchers to the 3rd. The 3rd team (the polishing team) steps in on the 1st article and as the most skilled members are amongst the polish team, they make sure to resolve any last issues that cleaners missed and ideally as soon as the polish team gets it, it's ready to be peer reviewed so that 3rd team gets the article reviewed, resolved and on it's way to being a GA or FA nomination.
- @David Condrey: I think there are some really good ideas in here, particularly about how GA is a good (and achievable) target to shoot for. The one week time frame is perhaps a bit unrealistic, for some of these reasons you point out. An editor that has a busy week might miss out on working on an article they are really interested in. Furthermore, while we are all very talented editors, we certainly have different strengths when it comes to article improvement.
- I like the idea of teamwork, and I can see some of that being realized with the work going on at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Further collaboration. Although, I have noticed that (currently) there is a much smaller number of editors working on articles past the 1 week mark. The difficulty of formalizing things by having teams is that it is less spontaneous and more like work. For example, editors that consider themselves to be part of team 3 might feel like team 2 didn't 'get their job done' by the time the third week comes around.
- There is definitely an underlying issue of direction, and how we can give more on weekly collaborations. Perhaps we can use the article talk pages more frequently? I really felt like Steak turned out well, despite a shaky start, and it was the talk page discussion that really go the direction going. I myself don't really put an upcoming article on my watchlist until it is the week of the collaboration, maybe we should encourage 'early collaboration' or brainstorming in advance? --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well the day after I wrote this big proposal.. I just got into a pretty severe motorcycle accident yesterday morning on the I-10 headed out to work. Luckily walked away from it with just a broken collarbone. But also got a nice case of roadrash that feels fabulous (does wonders for exfoliating) :) I've only got the use of 1 arm at the moment so probably won't be seeing much of me for the next couple of weeks while I recover. David Condrey (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- @David Condrey: There are some excellent ideas there, true TAFI gems. @NickPenguin: It's obvious that freedom and spontaneity is what makes TAFI easy to join and stay with (I informally 'joined' by doing something as simple as adding a disambiguation needed tag at National Library of China - I had no idea at what 'stage' the editing process was at that moment). That freedom needs to be maintained. But it causes some problems as well: many times I've gone after a typo only to see that someone else had already fixed something else you now we're in edit conflict. David Condrey probably remembers how some of my rather polishing touch prevented him from implementing a research edit at Raven tales - in the same article Nick Penguin and I nominated a merge at exactly the same time. We either need roles, or near real-time coordination or a bit of both (There used to be Wikipedia:Spotlight, in essence a TAFI with IRC. I've also used To do lists with good results. Communication is something we need to look into). It makes better articles if we don't exhaust ourselves over polishing something that is about to be revamped, moved around, (even deleted), so that it needs to be readjusted all the time. Then, there are obvious stages we need to have: A general idea of the scope and format of the article need to be established first, alongside with any big mergers or splits. Any citation needed tag should be dealt with at first sight. I hate to see our articles getting C because we didn't cite something that was already tagged in 2009. Similarly someone should see that the lead section is updated to suit the latest revision at the end of the week(s). Too soon is too soon, and too late is too late. Finally, by nominating TAFI articles after the week for DYK or GA/FA, I've seen how I return to them to really give them finishing touches. Maybe by regularly nominating articles we could give them a few weeks of extra attention. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 05:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Can the WP:TAFIM shortcut get moved and linked to the main project page rather than just the members page? It's always awkward trying to link to the project. The ' always screws me up :p David Condrey (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- ... why not use WP:TAFI ? - Evad37 [talk] 00:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Choose the TAFI article for Week 48 of 2014
- Lunch box - 3
- Bird of prey - 13
- Craft - 1
- For Dummies - 1
- Body memory - 5
- Tourism in the Caribbean - 16 - will be scheduled
- Concert - 5
- Arab cuisine - 12
- Subatomic particle - 7
- Adventure - 9
Archiving articles with 3 or less points
Now that the 4 week experiment of archiving articles with only 3 points or less, I wanted to start a discussion on how that worked, take a look at the articles that were identified, and see if there are any common threads that might help us guide our process in the future. For reference, the articles collected in this manner were:
- The arts
- Geography of Madagascar
- Shell money
- Yom Ha'atzmaut
- The Return of the King
- Barry White
- Second language
- National stereotypes
- Charles Rogier
- Hammond Typewriter
- Radio frequency
So out of 40 articles that got nominated, 11 received less than 3 points, which is slightly over 25%. Of them, only 2 are assessed above start class (Return of the King at B and Second Language at C). None of them are much longer than 25kb, and more than half of them have some sort of cleanup tag.
Looking at the topics, I don't really find much of a common theme, so I don't really have any general conclusions to draw myself. I am really interested to see what everyone things about the whole idea, and if it is a permanent change we should implement. Keep in mind that none of these articles would be officially archived unless it is agreed among our participants that it is for the best, and archiving would also not prevent any or all of these articles from being renominated. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- For starters, I tend to withdraw from the notion of any type of "permanent change", because sometimes things need to be later modified based upon varying user input to the project that may occur in the future, fluctuation of nominations on the nomination page, fluctuation on actual article improvements, etc. However, this is not a criticism, just an opinion. NorthAmerica1000 23:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
What happened to the article "Dishwashing liquid"? This article was approved for the holding area yet I do not see it in the holding area. What is going on?
- Ages ago we had a bot that did everything, but for the past year or thereabouts, successful nominations have had to be added manually to the holding area. I usually try to do it within 24 hours of archiving from the nominations page (depending on when archiving happens, and when I'm awake and on Wikipedia). - Evad37 [talk] 00:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Choose the TAFI article for Week 49 of 2014
Hello @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, Esoxid, Kvng, Whiteghost.ink, Ypnypn, Madalibi, Moswento, Kvng, Coin945, Mark Miller, WaitingForConnection, Evad37, Buffbills7701, Newyorkadam, Turn685, Victor falk, GiantSnowman, Melody Lavender: EMachine03, Simplysavvy, EuroCarGT, CSJJ104, Cloudz679, Iselilja, Khamar, Finnusertop, Tomásdearg92, CSJJ104, Davey2010, Stuartyeates, Gongshow, Jim Carter - Public, SL93, MrWooHoo, The boss 1998, Weikrx, NickGibson3900 and others (anyone can participate!):
The following articles have been randomly chosen from the holding area:
- Jade Emperor (level-4 vital article)
- Aries (astrology)
- Mexico–United States border
- Taboo (level-4 vital article)
- Keyboard instrument
- Third Punic War
- Venn diagram
- Personal finance
- Deity (level-3 vital article)
Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 49 of 2014. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Personal finance, Deity, Taboo. –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Personal finance, Jade Emperor, Keyboard instrument. ///EuroCarGT 06:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Aries, deity, third punic war--Coin945 (talk) 08:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keyboard instrument, Taboo, Third Punic War --Melody Lavender 10:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Personal finance, Taboo, Aries (astrology). C679 10:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Mexico–United States border, Kebab, Personal finance. GiantSnowman 14:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Mexico–United States border, Kebab, Keyboard instrument. NorthAmerica1000 20:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Mexico–United States border, Deity, Taboo. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
- Mexico-United States border, Keyboard instrument, Kebab Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Mexico–United States border, Venn diagram, Keyboard instrument - NickGibson3900 Talk 02:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's been massively reduced in content (by about 40 kb), and turned into basically a simple list at List of life sciences. Perhaps there is scope for a prose article as well, instead of the redirect, salvaging the content from an earlier revision and restructuring to be more like Social science? - Evad37 [talk] 01:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Week 41 recap - Steak
This article started with just a brief introduction of what a steak is, followed by a list of different types of beef steaks. AT the end we had an article that could easily be nominated for a GA. We created new sections on Etymology, Production, Marketing and sales, Cooking, Dining, Cultural significance, as well as sections on Beef steak, Fish steak, Lamb steak, Pork steak and Vegetarian steak. The article started at 8kb and 36kb, with almost none of the original content remaining. We also went from 4 to 24 images, and 3 citations to 53 citations.
Thanks to everyone involved, including @Whiteghost.ink:, @EuroCarGT:, @Mark Miller:, @Northamerica1000:, @Amanda Smalls:, @Evad37:, @Arjayay:, @Melonkelon:, @SovalValtos:, @Snowglobe123:, @DGD-M:, @David Condrey:, @Graham87:, @Gbeeker:, @Rcsprinter123:, @188.8.131.52:, @Macrakis:, @Giraffedata:. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Week 42 recap - Central America
Central America started with a pretty good overview of the region and the people who inhabit it. It began with sections on History, Geography, Demographics, Politics, Infrastructure and Usage. After 7 days, we had improved those sections, as well as added new ones on, Climate, Waterways, Geology, Environment, Biodiversity, Ethnic and Religious groups, Economy, Education, Culture, and Mass media. The article started at 37kb and jumped up to 60kb, starting with 27 citations going up to 50, as well as 10 new images.
Thanks to everyone involved, including @Northamerica1000:, @MrWooHoo:, @David Condrey:, @EuroCarGT:, @WolfmanSF:, @Melody Lavender:, @184.108.40.206:, @Spearhead Z:. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Week 43 recap - Ice hotel
This article began with just a list of 5 countries and the ice hotels that they have. After a week, the article had developed to have subsection for each country for the individual hotels, as well as an Overview and Construction section. The article started with 3 images, finishing with 13, as well as increasing from 5 to 27 citations and going from 10kb to 29kb.
Thanks to everyone involved, including @EuroCarGT:, @Finnusertop:, @Northamerica1000:, @DutchTreat:, @Dottedpencil:, @Melody Lavender:, @220.127.116.11:. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)