Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions
New idea: quick-failing |
|||
Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
:It's just backlogged. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
:It's just backlogged. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
::We've got a bunch of reviewers now I see, but we also have a bunch of people willing to nominate articles :D [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
::We've got a bunch of reviewers now I see, but we also have a bunch of people willing to nominate articles :D [[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
== New idea: quick-failing == |
|||
Frankly, I've gotten tired over so many articles being nominated that have simple, glaring problems that can be easily fixed. For these articles, I have invented the quick-fail system. The basic idea is to quickly scan new articles for 'negative' templates, <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags, and check the images for fair use rationale. If they have any of these problems, [[:Template:GAquickfail]] can be added to the talk page. Even though this is just a few problems, they are the most common, and easily 50% of articles seem to fail for at least one of those reasons. This process is only for newly nominated articles though; articles that have been waiting a while deserve a proper review. A couple of users can keep an idea on [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates]] on their watchlist and do a quick 10 second quick-fail check on new arivals. This should help stem the flow of nominations to those that are actually ready to be reviewed. Thoughts?--[[User:SeizureDog|SeizureDog]] 08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:48, 30 November 2006
![]() Archives |
---|
After reviewing this article, I do not believe it meets the criteria, as it seems to lack NPOV, difficult to read, too long, and is haphazertly put together, not to metion that it seems to have a large amount of extra information that is not directly related to the article.Honeymane 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
question regarding nominated article Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time
Reviewed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time. The article had already been nominated once, but failed. The issued addressed have probably been corrected. However, regardless whether I upset a lot of gamers, I don't think the article is good because it contains too much irrelevant information, as per What Wikipedia is not. It has a long list of levels, then a long list of all enemies in the game.
Is this a valid criteria? What do others think?
Fred-Chess 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's format isn't typical, but i'm not so certain that having a bunch of detail in this case is necessarily bad, it makes it look pretty compleate I think. It's not necessarily going off-topic, the information is all basically about the game :/. Is there an MoS thing about video games and listing levels? Homestarmy 16:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't seen a guideline. I think the section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Scope_of_information may be relevant.
- If one goes by other GA video games, I think Super Mario Bros is a relatively good example as it contains that material which I find interesting and relevant. Yet even that article contains a lot of additional trivias, and I don't think it would have been promoted to GA status today.
- Think about if a newspaper or a scholary magazine want to find information about TMNT, would they be interested in various level and enemies?
- Regarding policy, I draw on WP:NOT#IINFO here -- "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information".
- Fred-Chess 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think the Boss list should stay (after a very quick perusal, this seems like the most "gamish" bit to me). At first glance, it does indeed seem like gaming guide material, but its discussing the changes between the arcade version and the home release; documenting changes in content is encyclopedic.
- That said, the table could also be replaced with straight text that documents the five changes just as easily, if people are concerned about the table. Just my two cents. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I've put the GA Nomination on hold while we debate this issue. -- Ritchy 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- The issue has been debated, concensus reached, and corrections done. I'm taking the article off hold. -- Ritchy 00:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
IPs
Is there a reason you have to be registered to do anything here? I note that FA has no issues with IPs. 68.39.174.238 22:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- The acceptance or failure of a Good Article is dependent on one person's decision, unlike Features Articles. Because of this, it would be very easy for people to cause mayhem if IPs were allowed. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have to say though, there are two or three perma-anon users on Wikipedia who have static IPs and are just like regular users, (well, except for not being allowed to do a bunch of things) there may need to be exceptions made on a case by case basis :/. Homestarmy 07:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Forcing people to create an account to participate in GA is not a big requirement. The perma-anon users are free to create an account solely for GA purposes. --Ideogram 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- One of them has stated that they literally cannot create an account, it sounds like for very serious reasons, though they won't disclose why. Homestarmy 23:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Forcing people to create an account to participate in GA is not a big requirement. The perma-anon users are free to create an account solely for GA purposes. --Ideogram 09:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Mathematics and Physical Sciences
I do not particulary support the subsection Mathematics and Physical Sciences (Astronomy, Theory), especially the parathesed part. Why not just call it Mathematics and Pysics? Nick Mks 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the reviews made by Cocoaguy (talk • contribs • count) after, on being asked why he failed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time he answered this. If the GA criterias and the review process is to have any purpose, such reviewing can't be accepted.
Fred-Chess 17:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- He just passed Paul McCartney - I nominated that and have been waiting awhile for this to get reviewed and passed. I'm not having the article go to the back of the list just because this clown decided to pass it. If someone reverts it, please put it back exactly where it was in the queue. LuciferMorgan 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I might just play devil's advocate here, I think he may have been misinterpreted. Here's what he said
“ | I Failed this page beacuse the information was vage and un-interesting. lastly i could not understand a thing beacuse i do not follow the show or own the game. | ” |
- Now I can see how this could be misread. No doubt he didn't deliver it right but hw may have been trying to get across that the information wasn't very specific and he knows nothing about the subject and the article does a poor job of informing him on what it is about. This is how I see what he could have been saying
- The Bread: There was some other evidence too, such as never providing a reason for failing or promoting an article (which the instructions say is mandatory), or adding them to the list of Wikipedia:Good articles.
- LuciferMorgan: I would never dream to not put the article back in its place in the qeue. I already did that with Paul McCartney yesterday [1]. For consistancy maybe I should do it again -- but there are other reviewers, I'll leave it to them to decide. / Fred-Chess 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- He keeps passing it though, and frankly I think he should have a verbal warning, lest be blocked. Can someone just tell this idiot to stop his antics? Thanks for everyone else having sense. LuciferMorgan 01:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, it is disruptive. It may be worth talking to him nicely about how to pass or fail GAs (two days ago Nathannoblet passed a GA without saying a thing, I restored the GAN and left him a note on his talk page, and the next time he passed one he left a one-line comment [which could no doubt be improved, but even that was an improvement])... of course, some people are just too stubborn to be helped... – Chacor 01:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- He keeps passing it though, and frankly I think he should have a verbal warning, lest be blocked. Can someone just tell this idiot to stop his antics? Thanks for everyone else having sense. LuciferMorgan 01:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay cool, I didn't know the whole story and it seems you're right †he Bread 01:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- All I want is the Paul McCartney article put back in the GA nominee queue where it was (I placed it there awhile back) before this disruptive behaviour occurred, so that a reviewer can properly review it. Can someone put it back in the queue properly please? LuciferMorgan 01:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hes also passed 60 Minutes, leaving a note in the misc section where it was, and sent it straight on to FAC. :/ See the FAC page for info. RHB 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
lotsa undiscussed editing of the project page.. many people may want to have a say
Mmmmmmm. I noticed this by accident. Lotsa editing going on here. Can we get this out in the open and discuss it? Many other people may want to have a say, but may not have noticed the editing going on here. --Ling.Nut 17:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Such as? I haven't noticed any major changes. Moreschi 13:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe Ling Nut means this edit [2] by Fred Chess, which is kind of interesting. He made another change after that one which might be relevant too. I also later added a line saying potential reviewers ought to know the difference between GA and FA criteria. Hardly a controversial statement or, at least, it shouldn't be. --Folantin 13:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh great. Y'know, just fail an article, don't bother to be specific about why. That's really going to help the editors, and Wikipedia. He completely removed any reference to specification. Also [3] Moreschi 13:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with the changes by Fred Chess. TimVickers 16:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, that's the edit y'all were talking about? I thought it was when he changed the intro. Well, it seems to of been changed to a better wording now. Homestarmy
- Lol, glad you thought so. My wording isn't great but the intention is better. Moreschi 17:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Learning Curve
I guess this pertains a little to the above discussion, but how excatly does one learn how to rate good articles? There's a bit of a backlog right now, and I'd like to help, but I don't trust my judgement. The criteria is vague (it has to be or it wouldn't cover every subject) so I have no guidance as to what is a good article and what is not. Should we have a way or place to learn how to rate good articles, or a mentor student thing? I don't know, maybe I'll just stick with nominating and working on articles instead of rating them.--Clyde Miller 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the criteria is intentionally vauge, it depends on who reviews things whether an article will pass or not. But really, unless somebody start suddenly putting every article you pass up on the WP:GA/R page, then you'll probably be fine. Just try to be specific about the criteria when you review articles and that might help you get a better feel for whether an article really is passing or not. Homestarmy 22:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I found that the best way to learn was to observe. Watch the page for a while, and when an article is passed, failed, or put on hold, check the talk page and see what the reviewer said. Or do it the other way around... read the articles that are candidates, decide what you think about them, and then check afterwards to find out whether the reviewers agreed with you or not. Although the standards are indeed vague, it is surprisingly easy to get a feel for how they are used in practice. MLilburne 13:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. One more quick question. My specality is video game related articles. Would it be best for me to review those type of articles because I know how a good one is structured and what is considered broad in coverage, or should I go to something else because I may understand video game wording better than others and pass it when it should be failed?--Clyde Miller 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's your choice, I think that even with a speciality in video games, you'll be able to spot articles that get too prohibitive to the general population word-choice wise, and you'll certainly be familiar enough with the genre to spot lack of broadness better than other reviewers might. The thing about lack of broadness is that often when a reviwer isn't familiar with the field of an article, its hard to figure out whether a topic is missing something :/. Homestarmy 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well then I think I'll do video game articles to start. Thanks for the advice.--Clyde Miller 21:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's your choice, I think that even with a speciality in video games, you'll be able to spot articles that get too prohibitive to the general population word-choice wise, and you'll certainly be familiar enough with the genre to spot lack of broadness better than other reviewers might. The thing about lack of broadness is that often when a reviwer isn't familiar with the field of an article, its hard to figure out whether a topic is missing something :/. Homestarmy 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. One more quick question. My specality is video game related articles. Would it be best for me to review those type of articles because I know how a good one is structured and what is considered broad in coverage, or should I go to something else because I may understand video game wording better than others and pass it when it should be failed?--Clyde Miller 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Further splitting of nomination areas
The backlog is still rather crazy right now, and I'm wondering if it might help to split up the nominations a little more. For instance, Arts encompasses all sorts of things - books, movies, video games - can we split those up? Should meteorology get its own subheading since the machines they have working over at that WikiProject are responsible for a majority of that section? I think that if we split some of these headers up, we'll have more people able to review the articles they're comfortable with, and have fewer articles sitting for a month because of how overwhelming it is. Thoughts? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think this would be a very controversial thing to do and it should be helpful, but you'll have to be careful about sorting articles in the order that they've been nominated if you move them around. Homestarmy 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, but I won't touch them until I get a little more input. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea. This would also make sense for Geography - perhaps a split by continent? How about you split up the major headings using subheadings, rather than creating new top-level groupings? SP-KP 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- That was my plan, leaving "arts" intact and making a third-level heading for games, books, movies, etc. Down the line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Some of the categories are too ambiguous and it doesn't help when you are trying to find articles to review about certain subjects.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Finished. Feel free to add/subtract/pretty it up a bit more. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't we just copy the main GA page style and add navframes to the page. This way the page will look less disorganized and be easier to use. Tarret 21:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think that might create more hassle, there's so many categories, many of them will be empty, and it will be more difficult to nominate articles :/. Homestarmy 13:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- The current arrangement is visually quite confusing, though. Could we perhaps use top level headings for the top categories? That would at least draw some lines across the page and divide it up a little. MLilburne 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea. I tihnk it looks much, much better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- The current arrangement is visually quite confusing, though. Could we perhaps use top level headings for the top categories? That would at least draw some lines across the page and divide it up a little. MLilburne 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think that might create more hassle, there's so many categories, many of them will be empty, and it will be more difficult to nominate articles :/. Homestarmy 13:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think we need to rethink this heavy splitting of articles. We're forgetting that the more sections there are, the harder it is to see which articles have been waiting the longest. I think each section should probably have around 10 articles under it at any given time. --SeizureDog 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Time
How long does it take for a GA to get reviewed? It may be better to just go to FAC if it takes so long. Some have been waiting since 4th November for a review, while mine (Paul McCartney) has been waiting since the 12th. Is GA actually an active thing, or is it a passing interest which has died? LuciferMorgan 01:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's just backlogged. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- We've got a bunch of reviewers now I see, but we also have a bunch of people willing to nominate articles :D Homestarmy 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
New idea: quick-failing
Frankly, I've gotten tired over so many articles being nominated that have simple, glaring problems that can be easily fixed. For these articles, I have invented the quick-fail system. The basic idea is to quickly scan new articles for 'negative' templates, {{fact}} tags, and check the images for fair use rationale. If they have any of these problems, Template:GAquickfail can be added to the talk page. Even though this is just a few problems, they are the most common, and easily 50% of articles seem to fail for at least one of those reasons. This process is only for newly nominated articles though; articles that have been waiting a while deserve a proper review. A couple of users can keep an idea on Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates on their watchlist and do a quick 10 second quick-fail check on new arivals. This should help stem the flow of nominations to those that are actually ready to be reviewed. Thoughts?--SeizureDog 08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)