Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main page   Talk page   TAFI nominations   Holding area   Schedule   Assessment   Automation   Accomplishments   Further collaboration   Members   Archives  
TAFI Automated Checklist
Item This week Next week Week after
1. Weekly page created Yes Yes Yes
2. Article specified Yes Yes Yes
3. Picture/file chosen Yes Yes Yes
4. Caption written Yes Yes Yes
It is currently week 1 of 2015. Purge this page to refresh the checklist.

Choose the TAFI article for Week 3 of 2015[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Hello @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, Whiteghost.ink, Ypnypn, Madalibi, Moswento, Kvng, Coin945, Mark Miller, Evad37, Buffbills7701, GiantSnowman, Melody Lavender, EMachine03, EuroCarGT, CSJJ104, Cloudz679, Iselilja, Khamar [ping list 1 of 2: edit] @Finnusertop, Tomásdearg92, CSJJ104, Davey2010, Stuartyeates, Gongshow, Jim Carter - Public, SL93, MrWooHoo, The boss 1998, Qwertyxp2000 [ping list 2 of 2: edit], and others (anyone can participate!):

The following articles have been randomly chosen from the holding area:

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 3 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs) 07:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Results:

Result was History of Mongolia, thanks everyone. --NickPenguin(contribs) 09:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments (2015 week 3)[edit]

  • It seems that many people chose "History of Mongolia". Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    • If lots of people think that article would make the best TAFI, then hopefully we'll get lots of people working on it when it comes up - Evad37 [talk] 02:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Week 48 recap - Tourism in the Caribbean[edit]

This article began as two main sections, a History and a Downside section, with 10 references from two main sources. As the week progressed, the Downside section was integrated in a more neutral manner, as well as the creation of new sections such as Economy, Attractions, Tourists and Cultural impacts. Total citations almost tripled, from 10 to 28, and length increased from 10.5kb to 16kb, as well as adding 7 new images, and the removal of all maintenance tags.

Many thanks to everyone involved, including @EuroCarGT, Cloudz679, EMachine03, Dylanfromthenorth: @CaroleHenson, Northamerica1000, SovalValtos, Finnusertop: @Afernand74, Qwertyxp2000, K6ka, Jim.henderson:. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Week 49 recap - Mexico–United States border[edit]

This article was in a developed state when it came across our project, it had solid structure, good references, and many high quality images. This weeks collaboration focused more on incremental changes, and a great deal of effort was spent improving references for style and data. Improvements to the lede, Border regions, Disagreements over need for more resources, as well as a new name for the Mexico-United States barrier section rounded out some of the more visual improvements. Rearrangement of images also improved presentation in the article, as well as 3 additional references, and a slight increase in total length from 46kb to 47kb.

Thanks to everyone involved, including @Northamerica1000, K6ka, 173.174.174.12, Dylanfromthenorth: @74.248.179.80, MelanieN, Afernand74, Finnusertop: @Jim.henderson, RightCowLeftCoast, Clr324, Jeff in CA:. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I am not part of this WikiProject, I would like to thank everyone who helped improve this article. It received a lot of attention during the 2007 immigration debate, and it's good to see it brought up to speed for today's editing style and quality.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 4 of 2015[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Hello @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, Whiteghost.ink, Ypnypn, Madalibi, Moswento, Kvng, Coin945, Mark Miller, Evad37, Buffbills7701, GiantSnowman, Melody Lavender, EMachine03, EuroCarGT, CSJJ104, Cloudz679, Iselilja, Khamar [ping list 1 of 2: edit] @Finnusertop, Tomásdearg92, CSJJ104, Davey2010, Stuartyeates, Gongshow, Jim Carter - Public, SL93, MrWooHoo, The boss 1998, Qwertyxp2000 [ping list 2 of 2: edit], and others (anyone can participate!):

The following articles have been randomly chosen from the holding area:

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 4 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs) 09:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Results:

Result was Prose, thanks everyone. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments (week 4)[edit]

  • Oh, so that article nomination was duplicated. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Game design[edit]

It is now 0:00 Monday UTC. Do you want to keep working on the Game Design article? Spaghetti is now on. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason anyone would have to stop working on this article, if you would like to continue to collaborate on it, feel free to continue. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 5 of 2015[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Hello @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, Whiteghost.ink, Ypnypn, Madalibi, Moswento, Kvng, Coin945, Mark Miller, Evad37, Buffbills7701, GiantSnowman, Melody Lavender, EMachine03, EuroCarGT, CSJJ104, Cloudz679, Iselilja, Khamar [ping list 1 of 2: edit] @Finnusertop, Tomásdearg92, CSJJ104, Davey2010, Stuartyeates, Gongshow, Jim Carter - Public, SL93, MrWooHoo, The boss 1998, Qwertyxp2000 [ping list 2 of 2: edit], and others (anyone can participate!):

The following articles have been randomly chosen from the holding area:

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 5 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Results:

Image and caption for Prose[edit]

I had a tough time coming up for an image and caption for the blurb for Prose. If anyone has a better suggestion I am open to it. I went with the title page of the King James version of the bible, and a blurb stating it was an important example of prose. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable with the current wording of the caption – "most important" is an opinion we should be attributing to someone, rather than stating in Wikipedia's voice, WP:NPOV etc. We could say "an important", but how about just using a sample of prose as the image, eg File:The accompanying prose description.jpg ? - Evad37 [talk] 06:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
👍 Qwertyxp2000 likes this - Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I have changed to that image, and the current blurb reads "An example of prose, a type of writing that simulates the natural flow of language". --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Help me![edit]

Help me improve the accomplishments thing. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fun. I'll siphon through archives for results. EMachine03 (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: What am I supposed to do lol EMachine03 (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Evad37, NickPenguin, Northamerica1000: Do you know, those of who I mentioned?

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For each week, you fill out the following template, which adds a row to the table

{{Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Accomplishments/row
|YYYY     = 
|WW       = 
|oldid    = 
|olddate  = 
|oldclass = 
|newid    = 
|newdate  = 
|newclass = 
|edits    = 
|editors  = 
|IPs      = 
|bots     = 
|reverts  = 
|prose_before = 
|prose_after  = 
|size_before  = 
|size_after   = 
}}
  • |YYYY= is the year
  • |WW= is the week number
  • The old revision is the last version of the article before {{TAFI}} was added – can be found by browsing in the article's history tab for an edit summary of "Adding Today's articles for improvement tag" or similar, and the clicking on the time-date stamp of the previous edit. This will open up the old version of the article.
    • |oldid= is the old version's revision ID – the number in the URL that appears after &oldid= when the old version is open
    • |olddate= is the date of the old version – as listed in the history tab, or if the the old version is open, the "last edited" date in the pink box at the top
    • |oldcass= is the quality class of the old version, assessed in accordance with WP:TAFIA (may be different to other wikiprojects) – should be in the {{Former TAFI}} banner on the article's talk page. If not, the old version needs to be assessed per WP:TAFIA, and the assessment / B-class checklist filled out in the {{Former TAFI}} template.
    • |prose_before= is the number of characters of prose in the old version of the article – counted using WP:Did you know/DYKcheck (or similar).
    • |size_before= is the size of the old version, in bytes, as listed in the history tab
  • The new revision is the last version of the article before {{TAFI}} was removed – can be found by browsing in the article's history tab for an edit summary of "Rm {{TAFI}} - Week is over" or similar, and the clicking on the time-date stamp of the previous edit. This will open up the new version of the article (at the end of its week of improvements)
    • |newid= is the new version's revision ID – the number in the URL that appears after &oldid= when the new version is open
    • |newdate= is the date of the new version – as listed in the history tab, or if the the new version is open, the "last edited" date in the pink box at the top
    • |newcass= is the quality class of the new version, assessed in accordance with WP:TAFIA (may be different to other wikiprojects) – should be in the {{Former TAFI}} banner on the article's talk page. If not, the new version needs to be assessed per WP:TAFIA, and the assessment / B-class checklist filled out in the {{Former TAFI}} template.
    • |prose_after= is the number of characters of prose in the new version of the article – counted using WP:Did you know/DYKcheck (or similar).
    • |size_after= is the size of the new version, in bytes, as listed in the history tab
  • |edits= is the number of edits that occurred excluding the edits that added and removed the TAFI banner. The method I use for this and the subsequent parameters is:
    1. Make sure all TAFI edits are visible in the history tab view – click on higher numbers 100, 250, 500 at the end of the line "(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)" above/below the list of edits if necessary.
    2. Copy the relevant rows – everything in between but excluding the edits that added and removed the TAFI banner
    3. Paste, as plain text, into a spreadsheet program such as MS Excel
    4. Look at the total number of rows – this is the number for |edits=
    5. Use the "Text to Columns" function to strip out everything but the editors' names/IP adresses
    6. Use the "Remove Duplicates" function to find the number of unique editors – this is the number for |editors=
    7. Count the number of IP adresses – this is the number for |IPs=
    8. Count the number of bots, which have usernames typically eding in "bot" (ie AnomieBOT) – this is the number for |bots=
  • At the history tab, scan through for and count the number of edit summaries that explicitly identify the edit as a revert – i.e. includes the words "revert", "rvt" "undid", "restored revision", or similar. The number of these explicit reverts is the number for |reverts=

Note that the older rows were done as a simple wikitable, without the automation the above template supplies. Note also that each template should start on exactly the next line following the previous, ie

...
}}
{{Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Accomplishments/row
... 

otherwise the extra lines will appear as extra spacing in the table cells - Evad37 [talk] 06:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 52, 2014)[edit]

Hello, WikiProject TAFI.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Natural phenomenon


Previous selections: Spaghetti • Game design


Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: NorthAmerica1000 12:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Week 50 recap - Game design[edit]

Game design started with a decent but short lede, and it listed 6 types of games, with some brief descriptions of game design in their context. It also included an impressive list of sources to use as references, however it had no inline references.

Development included with a structure overhaul, including the addition and expansion of sections on History, Theory, Design elements, and the Development process, as well as various subsections. Game types were moved into a subsection, and included the addition of video games as a type, which was previously missed. In particular a large amount of development went into expanding the board games type section, with an impressive amount of content and references.

The article finished up with some maintenance tags, including expansion, clarification and reference tags, but overall improvement was excellent. Total length went from 4.6kb to 36.3kb, we added 6 new images, and 41 inline citations. Overall article quality was still assessed as Start class, as it still shows further potential for improvement.

Many thanks to everyone who helped out, including @Maplestrip, Northamerica1000, Neonchameleon, Thibbs, Buster7: @K6ka, Ihardlythinkso, Contributor tom, Rmhermen: @Qwertyxp2000, Finnusertop:. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you. But I only gave you a start to the "Sports" section. Please help by expanding that section. Thankfully I gave some starter citations. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Week 51 recap - Spaghetti[edit]

Spaghetti before the TAFI day is not very well done, with only 8 inlines and 7KB. Although it has pictures, a lot of work had to be done to make it improved.

This article was developed by adding a "Production" section which helps show how spaghetti is made, expansion on the "Serving" section, and yet more useful sections. However, some of the sections appear too short and the presentation is still not adequate for a 1980x1080 computer screen. On that screen, the Level 2 sections are too close together and still needs more work. Other than that, now there are 18 inlines and 15.3KB after the TAFI.

Although there are no maintenance tags before the TAFI, there was only one maintenance tag where I had trouble with - duplicated citations. Thank goodness EuroCarGT helped me solve that problem.

Overall, the article is still Start-class, it is expanded well but not well enough, there are now 15 images, and the flow is a lot smoother (but only in the start of the article).

Many thanks to everyone who helped out including @EuroCarGT, Northamerica1000, Macrakis, EMachine03: @SovalValtos, Finnusertop, Afernand74: and, of course, myself. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

All right, any queries or comments? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • What do you reckon about my statements? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Acceptable, thanks for doing the recap. I try to keep all comments positive, and I try to avoid personal glories. You will have to find your own style. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for the FAQ of the B-class stuff[edit]

Q: About how much range of citations can this criterion (number 1) be passed?

Q: About how long article will this criterion (number 4) be paid attention to?

Thank you, Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand your questions – perhaps you would like to clarify... but, for the first question, if you are asking how many different sources are required for B-Class, then the answer is as many or as few as required in order to cite everything that needs to be cited - no set number is required. And I'm not sure what you mean by "be paid attention to", but for any article of any length to be assessed as C-Class or B-Class, it has to pass this criterion - Evad37 [talk] 02:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
What I mean is that... A stub would not be passed, but how long should the article be before criterion 4 should be assessed? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, a stub could be passed, but there's not much point checking a short stub against the criteria as it would still be assessed as a stub – in which case the checklist can be left as "not checked". But otherwise, or if you are not sure, then complete the checklist. But #4 is pretty easy to pass, only articles written through machine translation, by young kids, or by people learning English as a second language would be likely to fail. - Evad37 [talk] 06:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Please can you put this down in that B-class FAQ? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this already addressed by the FAQs already there? Fail it only if the article is poorly written: "The ship sunk in 1918, by torpedo from a germa uboat. 20 crew went down in it but most with CAPT excvaped in lifeboats and were picked up by example." and Do I pass a two-line stub ... Don't bother completing the checklist for something that short.
👍 Qwertyxp2000 likes this - Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my question nominations. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 6 of 2015[edit]

Hello @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, Whiteghost.ink, Ypnypn, Madalibi, Moswento, Kvng, Coin945, Mark Miller, Evad37, Buffbills7701, GiantSnowman, Melody Lavender, EMachine03, EuroCarGT, CSJJ104, Cloudz679, Iselilja, Khamar [ping list 1 of 2: edit] @Finnusertop, Tomásdearg92, CSJJ104, Davey2010, Stuartyeates, Gongshow, Jim Carter - Public, SL93, MrWooHoo, The boss 1998, Qwertyxp2000 [ping list 2 of 2: edit], and others (anyone can participate!):

The following articles have been randomly chosen from the holding area:

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 6 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs) 07:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments (week 6)[edit]

  • Note: the article Ode to Joy is not referring to the Beethoven song. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here? I am all for good preparation but we are discussing picks for week 6 and it's still the previous year. What about something in the rules stating when there is a tie and two articles are scheduled, the next vote is delayed for a week accordingly. Otherwise this delay is just going to get bigger. Thoughts? C679 20:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that would make sense. I didn't realistically think there would be a tie, but it has happened twice, and a few votes including last weeks have been close. Do you think we should postpone the next weeks vote to bring things a little closer? --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)