Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:47, 18 November 2011

Nomination process

The backlog is huge! Is there something we can do to restrict nominations?: There have been complaints about the perceived backlog in reviewing since the Good article status was created in 2006. Generally speaking, we don't want to restrict nominations along their path to GA. In the beginning, as many as 100 nominations were waiting for a reviewer to volunteer. By 2011, each day typically listed 330 nominated articles, of which 260 were waiting. By 2016, 580 were listed, 460 waiting; by 2021, 470 were listed, 300 were waiting. For comparison, today there are currently 650 nominations listed and 554 waiting for a reviewer.; While it may seem overwhelming, a large backlog isn't a bad thing. It shows that many nominators want to use GA as a tool to improve the encyclopedia. It also allows reviewers to choose from a wide selection of articles that interest them. From a nominator's perspective, the main concern is the expected wait time before receiving a review, not the number of articles on the nominations page.
Can't we force nominators to review articles?: Quid pro quo reviewing (editors must review an article before nominating, perhaps after a grace period) was regularly proposed and always rejected as likely leading to lower quality reviews and fewer nominations from excellent content creators who may not wish to review another person's work.
What order do nominations appear on the Good article nominations page?: One advantage of reviewing articles to help the Wikipedia community is the GAN appearance order: the more articles you have reviewed relative to articles you have nominated, the higher up in the queue your nomination will appear on the GAN page. Note that above this, order preference is given to nominators who are new to GA.
What if the nominator is a (perhaps dynamic) IP address?: Any editor with significant contributions to the article may nominate an article for GA status (while only registered users may review), so significant-contributor IP nominators are permitted. Non-significant contributors should follow the advice above for editors who have not significantly contributed to the article. Dynamically changing IP nominators may want to clarify to the reviewer that, despite their signature, they remain the same person.
Can I nominate an article I haven't significantly contributed to?: No. Nominations from editors who have not substantially contributed will be removed unless the nomination shows that the article's regular editors were consulted on its talk page alongside a note on the GAN template showing their commitment to the process, e.g., |note=Adopted following extensive improvement by another editor. In the past, many drive-by nominators did not know the article or its sources and did not respond to questions by the reviewer.

Review process

I want to review an article. Do I have to review the oldest unreviewed nomination first?: Thank you for deciding to review an article for GA. You may review any nominated article you are not involved in, regardless of the nomination's age or position in the queue.
As a reviewer, I want to help the nominator improve the article, but it already meets the criteria. What am I supposed to do now?: The purpose of a GA review is to determine whether the article meets the GA criteria. Article-improvement discussions are intended to prevent near-misses in nominated articles that almost meet the criteria. If the article already meets the criteria when you first review it, then explain exactly what you've checked in each of the main criteria (e.g., "I have verified there is no original research, copyright violations, plagiarism, unreliable sources, bias, edit wars, or untagged images.") and list it as a Good article. "Quick passes" are as legitimate as quick fails, although they are less common. Please do not make a list of nitpicky details or exceed the written requirements of the Good article criteria in an effort to make the review look rigorous. Instead, thank the nominator for presenting such a polished article, and encourage them to submit another.
Who can respond to the review?: The nominator is expected to respond to the reviewer's suggestions to improve the article, while everyone interested in the article is encouraged to participate in the review, not just the person who happened to nominate it. Nominators have no special privileges over other editors except that they can withdraw the nomination.
Should nominators respond to reviewers' concerns? And what should reviewers do if they don't?: The nominator has an interest in seeing the article become GA, so the nominator will likely want to respond to the reviewer to improve the article. In fact, all editors interested in the article are encouraged to respond to reviewers' concerns. However, nobody, including the nominator, is required to. If the reviewer identifies concerns directly related to the Good article criteria and no one addresses the concerns, then no one should be surprised if the reviewer declines to list the article. If the article does not meet the Good article criteria after the reviewer has waited a reasonable amount of time for the nominator to make improvements, the reviewer is sure to fail the nomination. Future article editors may benefit from review comments on how to improve the article.
The nominator disagrees with the reviewer. Can another reviewer take over?: If your GAN experience is not going well or if you are disagreeing with the reviewer's decisions, then you may allow the review to fail, take the reviewer's suggestions into account, then renominate the article immediately (to get a different reviewer). If the reviewer has not yet failed the nomination, you may try asking them to ask for a second opinion. Other than these, another reviewer does not normally take over an active review. You might want to read What the Good article criteria are not. To prevent avoidable disputes, reviewers should either not make comments unrelated to the Good article criteria, or they should carefully label those suggestions as optional (e.g., "I know that citation formatting is not required by the Good article criteria, and I will not consider this when making my decision, but if you might send this to Wikipedia:Featured articles later, then that process requires consistent citation formatting").
Does an article have to be on hold for exactly seven days?: No. Whether to place the nomination on hold at all, and the length of any such hold, is for the reviewer to decide. Depending on the quality of the article and the responsiveness of the nominator, a hold may not be necessary. If the reviewer decides that it is, they may choose longer or shorter periods of hold time. The reviewer may even modify the {{GA nominee}} template on the article talk page to include a "time" parameter, for example, "time=fourteen days", and the {{GANotice}} template used to convey messages to the GA nominator to include a "days" parameter, for example "days=fourteen". Keep in mind that protracted reviews show up as exceptions on the GA nominations report page.
What should I do if a review page becomes inactive?: This can happen for a number of reasons. Review pages should only be started by reviewers who are willing to take an active interest in the article and are committed to completing their review of the article in a timely manner. Sometimes another editor (such as the nominator) starts the review page by mistake. A reviewer can fix this by placing their signature after "Reviewer:" towards the top of the review page, but if no reviewer is forthcoming, it may be best to delete the review page: requests for such deletions may be posted at the discussion page. If a new reviewer is truly needed, follow the instructions page under "What to do during a review if it seems abandoned". Do not use this process to void a review you disagree with.
I failed the article, and the nominator just nominated it again without fixing the problems I identified!: That's okay. There is no time limit between nominations, and this is the recommended process if the nominator disagrees with your review. Let someone else review it this time. The new reviewer is sure to read your comments while independently deciding on their assessment. If your concerns were legitimate, then the new reviewer will doubtless agree with you and also decline to list the article as GA. If the article is passed and you do not believe it meets the Good article criteria, you can initiate a reassessment.
How can GA be reliable when a single reviewer decides?: The quality of a Good article is only as reliable as the most recent review and articles may deteriorate if unattended. The GA process deals with both of these issues by allowing repeat reviews by any registered user at any time. The process aims to encourage article improvement and build consensus on quality through multiple reviews—even though a single reviewer makes the decision whether to list the article according to the GA criteria. Any editor may contribute to any review discussion and reassessment is available when the "one reviewer decides" model breaks down.
What if I have concerns about the quality of a review or need to resolve a dispute over the GA process?: You can bring those concerns to the discussion page to get help from other editors. Remember, however, to notify all users about whom concerns have been raised or who are involved in any dispute that you have.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcut

WT:GAN

Request for reviewers for educational assignments GANs (for mid-November)

Some of you may already be familiar with that :) As I've done in the past, I am assigning my students to improve sociology-related articles on Wikipedia to Good Article. Since this is an educational assignment, the students will need their work reviewed within few days of them requesting a review (they are supposed to request one by November 14, and the course ends within a month of that - and we cannot expects the students to contribute past the grading period, sadly). At the same time I'd ask the reviewers to give students extra time if they need it - some groups may need an entire month to address the issues raised (and some may do it within days - no different from an average editor, really...). Just as I've done in the past several times, I am asking for reviewers to pre-sign for the articles to be reviewed (list below), and in exchange I promise to review myself an article from our backlog (I'll start soon). This time there will be eleven articles to review:

Promised reviews by me on my end of the bargain: 1) Talk:Weiquan movement/GA1 2) Talk:Nuclear energy policy of the United States/GA1 3) Talk:Tom Kahn/GA1 4) Talk:Birth control movement in the United States/GA1 5) Talk:Collaborative fiction/GA1 6) Talk:Outlaw Star/GA1 7) Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 82/GA1 8) Talk:Ivan Shishman of Bulgaria/GA1

If you would like to review one or more articles, please post here and cross it from the list above. I'll post the articles I've initiated a review for here, too. Thanks! PS. You are more than welcome to check the student progress before a good article review and offer comments. Some groups are progressing very quickly ( :) ), while others, despite graded course deadlines, have done little or nothing yet (sigh...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If any are able to complete it by the end of October and nominate it by then, I'm willing to review it quite quickly (if the students are anything like me though, they'll all be nom'd on the 14th lol). Beyond that I can't make any guarantees personally, as I plan to edit sparingly the last month or two of the year. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do one (joint custody). Sounds like fun. Just let me know the time line and if any groups have chosen it. AstroCog (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take Marriage in the US. Ditto with Astrocog's comments. Ruby comment! 03:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to take on Personal wedding website. I'm likely to have time to review this in November. I've cleaned up some of the other wedding-related articles on occasion, and based on the difficulties there, I sincerely wish the students luck with finding enough independent sources to write a decent article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with reviewing any. Buggie111 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, two down, nine to go (students are supposed to be already working on all of those articles, but their progress varies significantly). If you select an article from that list, please do not hesitate to drop by the article's talk page, introduce yourself to students and offer the any early advise you think is relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for more reviewers... :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken college dating and Bride Scam. Buggie111 (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take Grounds for divorce. Looks like it needs lots of work. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single Parent looks like the best of the rest. You may need to start cracking the whip soon. AIRcorn (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've begun doing so. In the end, however, I cannot force them to do anything, and some groups will probably produce problematic entries :( On the bright side, there are always those who do pretty good work, so... the usual :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still need 5 more articles to be taken. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take open relationship. Seems in alright shape. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That still leaves a few... expect the nominations to appear today. Some are in a pretty good shape, but a few are still not where I'd GAN them. Unfortunately, I cannot force the students to actually do some work, IF they are don't want to do any work. I apologize in advance. ATM bride scam and personal wedding website seem simply not comprehensive and barely beyond stub. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can Philcha help the GA project?

I am ill and must give up reviewing for GA. At the same time I can still write articles, hopefully to GA level but very slowly. Is there any way I can reduce the load on other reviewrs? --Philcha (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not that big of a drain :P Just get well soon! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David Fuchs; be selfish, think of yourself. But may I say that I find it rather creepy to talk about yourself in the third-person? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather creepy to talk about myself in the third-person. The template has no paramether of personal message - I wonder why ;-) --Philcha (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you're ill. If you wanted to "do something" that wouldn't take too much time or energy, and would avoid a lengthier commitment, then I have two suggestions:

Look in at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report every now and again to see what's happening (if anything) with some of the oldest reviews. Sometimes people need to be prodded to wrap up old reviews, or we need a note here about a review that's been abandoned by its reviewer. Checking one or two and leaving a brief note if there's been no activity for several weeks takes only a couple of minutes. Similarly, sometimes old second-opinion requests can be resolved quickly, without requiring a significant commitment.
Stop in at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Sometimes the issues are simple, so five minutes' work provides a significant benefit to the nominator.

I hope that you feel better soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC

Thanks, I'll start soon. --Philcha (talk) 08:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011 Backlog Elimination Drive

I've created a sub-page for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/December 2011. Let's organize our efforts there. I'll add some other stuff to it later. AstroCog (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, add your name if you want co-coordinate with me. AstroCog (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can jump in as a coordinator if needed, though I'd rather take a backseat and just review for one rather than running it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've suggested above, how about running the drive for two months? Brad78 (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I'll make the change. AstroCog (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 months is too long. Even 1 month can cause coordinators to suffer burn out. (Trust me, I did one month before and it's gruesome.) One month of backlog elimination drive is good enough. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Start the drive now, say November 15, and let it run until the end of December as a compromise. A month and a half is not too long or too short and it also allows people who are going to be home for Thanksgiving to contribute. 88.80.28.70 (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving - remember the rest of the world. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand burn out for a two-month drive, the statistics above always show the backlog bounces back to normal anyway. I just feel with a two-month drive, even if burnout happens during the second month, it should keep a lid on the bounce a little more than normal. Brad78 (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.99.159 (talk) [reply]

Do you want Signpost coverage for this? Maybe bring a wider audience. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a trade-off. While it's good to have more people aware of the drive, you may also bring sub-par reviewers which duplicates the efforts because their reviewers will have to be reviewed by third party. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The more participants the better. If just a couple of new reviewers turn up and decide to stick around it will ease the burden in the long run and help keep the backlog down. AIRcorn (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll put a temporary blurb (in brief) in. Please ping me if there is a decision that we should not post it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where is registration? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drive reviewers add their reviews to the Running total section on the drive page. Looking at past drives, I didn't see any registration pages/sections. AstroCog (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds good. And they sign their names on the page too? Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out for all here: there is a talk page for the upcoming drive here. AstroCog (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. AstroCog (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail

I had quick fail the article. Anyone else is welcome to tell the nominator anything else I missed. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 15:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer needed for Occupy Wall Street

The GAN for OWS needs an uninvolved editor to pick up the review from a very involved editor who mistakenly began reviewing the article, using the GAN process to push his POV against consensus. Please go to Talk:Occupy Wall Street/GA1 and check in. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given the backlog of GANs, I see no obvious reason why this shouldn't be placed back in the queue to wait its turn for an uninvolved editor. It was just nominated today. AstroCog (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly a quick fail—a look at the article history and the friction on the talk page will be decisive. I cannot do this myself because I am involved. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. AstroCog (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillic in sources

Greetings! I have a question regarding the use of Cyrillic in citations. In the review of Michael Shishman I have been told that the citiations should be in Cyrillic; while at the current GA review of Ivan Shishman, I am told the opposite and the reviewer has suggested to bring that issue here. How are we going to proceed? Should the citations of books in Cyrillic be left in that alphabet or transliteration into Latin? Regards, --Gligan (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My personal thought is to leave the title in its native language and alphabet, but provide the English translation of the title. The {{cite book}}, etc templates have |trans_title= to deal with that, and if you are using citation templates, that's probably the easiest way to go. If you aren't, you can emulate that output though. Imzadi 1979 → 03:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the way you have done it. The National Anthem of Russia is a featured article and doesn't even use the transliterations. AIRcorn (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer who asked for the above changes, I want to clarify I am fine with the Imzadi's solution. The best reference will have both the original text (title and publisher, at least), and the translated text for them. For non-Latin alphabets everything really needs to be transliterated. I wonder if there is something in the MoS about it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a translation of the title, a transliteration isn't really needed, and in fact would clutter things needlessly. Imzadi 1979 → 00:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's worth remembering that the WP:Good article criteria don't require anything at all in terms of citation formatting. I don't want to discourage people from making improvements, but if the reviewer can figure out what source the citation refers to, then it clears the (very low) bar set by the actual criteria. Consequently, inconsistency or some level of incompleteness in citation formatting is not technically something that articles should be failed over. (See the commentary on that criterion.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I misspoke; a translation is of course preferable to simple transliteration. But a transliteration can be useful, for example some sources may prefer to use a transliterated, rather then translated title when referring to a title. And of course we do not translate names. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Major League Baseball expansion draft

I nominated this article here a little while ago; it's got a little while to wait before its turn, though. However, an editor brought to my attention that he sees it as more of a list, and therefore FLC, as opposed to an article for GAN. I had considered which was the more appropriate venue when I nominated it and chose GAN because I felt it was a list embedded in an article, rather than a list with prose. However, I may have been mistaken, and I sure don't want to wait however long it will take for this to come up for review only to be told I brought it to the wrong place, which delays this getting promoted and would delay my place in the queue with a confirmed article. Please give me some advice: does the above article belong here or at FLC? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards featured list. I looked through the featured lists and there a number of draft articles there and I did not find any in the promoted good articles. AIRcorn (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't even see this as borderline, the article should be withdrawn here and submitted at FLC. Courcelles 04:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I guess you're right. I'll withdraw it and nominate something else here. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for four reviewers

For the educational projects described above. Expect the nominations to appear today or tommorrow, and I'd love to see reviews by the end of this week. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this nomination page / RSS / Atom

I just saw this nice footer now added to all Article Alerts page: Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report page footer. I think it would be helpful to have a variant of it added to all GAN nominations. I wanted to create a template/page for us, but there is a bit too much code for me to parse that page. Do you think it would be a good idea to add it to our nominations (we already have a toolbox with disambig/link tools)? If so, could somebody assimilate those tools for us? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failing nom

hello,

the nominator of Otis Redding is now away and will return at the end of this month. I don't want to wait so long, as I want to bring it to TFA on 10 December (not important if it fails or not, I just want to try it out; it is a challenge). There are now these options:

Either I fail this article myself and search another review; he should review it right after I put this tag on the talk page. If someone is willing to do that, please let me know,
Or I fail this and bring it to FAC.

I now want to here from you any suggestions which of these two options are the most effective, and why. Thank you.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 21:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

I think SilkTork waited long enough (six weeks) for improvements and the article should be failed. He would have passed it if it was ready; instead, he announced his upcoming online absence. The article is not ready for WP:FAC, not by a long shot. (No mention of San Francisco Bay or Sausalito? Incorrect quote of Bill Graham saying "biggest gig" rather than "best gig"? No mention of how Redding influenced Janis Joplin? No reference to Geoff Brown's book Otis Redding: Try a Little Tenderness or Zelda Redding's The Definitive Otis Redding? The glaring mistake about the accidentally wrong versus intentionally false ending that Redding put into his final song at Monterey Pop?) I would recommend submitting the article to WP:Peer review after the GAN is closed. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. Not only long enough, but too long imho. He should have quick-failed it right from the beginning. The GAN was more like a Peer Review, anyway I will put this to PR. All in all it was a little bit too long and sluggish, but very helpful.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 11:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Review stalled

As the review here has stalled and the reviewer seems to be busy with their FAC, can someone pick up where the review ended ("Meteorological history")? Thanks. HurricaneFan 25 14:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request 2 community reassessment

Request community reassessments for Warcraft II and Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares. In individual GAR, both ended with new objections, giving me so change to response. And in Master of Orion II the reviewer wrote, "... indeed possibly also WP:NOT: this is not an encyclopedia article at present, but a gameguide with reviews" - but Master of Orion II has many good citations, including several game reviews from good sources - some about just this games, and some about its use as the "gold standard" for reviews of other games. --Philcha (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those were both delisted over a year ago. If they now meet the criteria you would be better nominating them here rather than going through community reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Educational assignments

There are numerous nominees associated with university courses and, therefore on a tight timeline. Because they are being edited by new users a good degree of patience and instruction should be used. Such articles looking for reviewers include:

~~Assembly of the Poor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~
Reservation in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Family honor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Family in advertising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dysgraphia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eye movement in language reading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Learning to read (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rapid automatized naming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double burden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Proletarian poetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
William Attaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rebecca Harding Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have reviewed one and will keep the review open until the course is over. maclean (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review Assembly of the Poor Jezhotwells (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 179: / Line 179: @@
 == Request 2 community reassessment ==
 Request community reassessments for ''[[Warcraft II]]'' and ''[[Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares]]''. In individual GAR, both ended with new objections, giving me so change to response. And in ''Master of Orion II'' the reviewer wrote, "...  indeed possibly also [[WP:NOT]]: this is not an encyclopedia article at present, but a gameguide with reviews" - but ''Master of Orion II'' has many good citations, including several game reviews from good sources - some about just this games, and some about its use as the "gold standard" for reviews of other games. --[[User:Philcha|Philcha]] ([[User talk:Philcha|talk]]) 15:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
+:Those were both delisted over a year ago. If they now meet the criteria you would be better nominating them here rather than going through community reassessment. [[User:Aircorn|AIR<font color="green">'''''corn'''''</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 04:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 ==Educational assignments==