Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles
|WikiProject Good articles was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 18 September 2013. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Good articles page.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5|
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2014 WikiCup will begin in January. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, 106 users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Signature by bot posts is improper
This is with regards to the notices that the bot posts notifying the nominator that a review has been started. Having such a notice is a GREAT idea, and thanks for the efforts of whoever is handling. But the signature that the bot is placing on those posts is that of the reviewer. (and IMHO the "on behalf of" notice earlier in the post does not make this OK) I hate to get tough on this, but it is saying things that I would not have said and putting my signature on the post....this is a violation of policy.
Having such a notice is a GREAT idea, and thanks for the efforts of whoever is handling.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I also wrote at the bot page and they said to come here. Also, the bot is putting false information which is that the review will take less than a week, and then signing my names as the author of the false information. Can someone tell me who controls the bot text? The bot is violating policy by signing other peoples names to something tat they didn't write. I've moved one baby step up the "ornery" scale regarding this. Could someone respond? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Revisit one idea for backlog reduction
I'd suggest revisiting one idea for backlog reduction. That would be a requirement for nomination that there be an editor who, to an at least limited extent is willing to engage in the review discussion. In my medium amount of experience (57 reviews) articles without that never pass and are a waste of reviewer time / resources. I'm guessing that this describes 20% of the articles I reviewed and all were non-passes due to other problems. The "fail" instructions make this worse by in essence calling for a full review of failed articles, even when there is nobody there. There is no graceful way to "fast fail" these. Not that this is totally accurate, but, roughly speaking, just imagine where the backlog would be if that "20%" of reviews had instead been directed at articles that didn't have this issue. The answer: zero backlog. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- A long while back, we used to have "quick fail" for articles that are nowhere near ready. But then rational thoughts gave way to WP:BUREAUCRACY because some believe that it "sometimes irritates editors who are keen to improve the article" (per exact wording on Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles) so that "quick fail" was stripped down to bare bones and discouraged from using it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I have a COI with Viralheat. The GA reviewer mentioned the article may not be stable enough, because this discussion has not yet resolved. There are no edit-wars, however, consensus on the proposed changes is unclear. I was hoping someone might be willing to review the discussion and edit boldly so we can check it off the GA list as I don't feel it is appropriate for me to make any changes in this area on account of my COI. CorporateM (Talk) 16:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Backlog reduction drive results
Hello. I'm AmericanLemming, and I maintain the GA stats page. Now that it's February, the results of the backlog elimination drive are in! Here they are:
- 1. In December 2013, the net number of articles promoted was 219.
- 2. In January 2014, the net number of articles promoted was 252.
We can compare these results with those from November-December 2012 backlog elimination drive:
- 1. In November 2012, the net number of articles promoted was 166.
- 2. In December 2012, the net number of articles promoted was 215.
- 3. In January 2013, the net number of articles promoted was 318.
Other interesting numbers include: