Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Lead section

Maybe it would be helpful to editors—when they are writing an article—to tell them to leave the Lead to last, as it is a summary. I know this looks/feels strange when you are working on an article, but it makes writing the Lead an easy thing to do when you are ready to submit. How many times have you seen references in an introduction/preface in a book? :)--andreasegde 04:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly one way of looking at it. Although in my experience, I often see the lead section as a mini article in itself, and I find it helpful to write a good lead section first, then expand the main topics mentioned in the lead into the article itself, which is somewhat backwards from your suggestions. But whatever works best, I suppose. If the lead needs significant work, I usually direct editors to WP:LEAD. Dr. Cash 07:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 27/10/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Canadian Paul as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 27th October 2007. Canadian Paul is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Canadian Paul
2. Derek.cashman
3. Esprit15d
4. Awadewit
5. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage.
Epbr123 11:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Third week in a row for Canadian Paul! Now he's challenging my streak,... ;-) Congrats! Dr. Cash 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to all, since we've got the backlog back under 200! Cheers, CP 04:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, good work. I am considering starting to review again. :) IvoShandor 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I did one. Woot. IvoShandor 11:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm wondering what exactly the criteria for this list is. It's good that it's informal and easygoing, but do holds count? Don't tell me that simply placing a review tag counts? I think the results are pretty obvious when it comes to who deserves the barnstar, but could you elaborate Epbr? Thanks a million, VanTucky ^Talk 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• A review is only taken into account once it's been completed, as its thoroughness can't be judged until then. Epbr123 23:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The criteria are fairly simple, as long as there is an r in the month: if the week begins in an even month then the reviewer of the week is Canadian Paul; if it begins in an odd month, then the reviewer of the week is Derek.cashman. Unfortunately, there was an error on 8th September (which should probably be taken to GAR/ROTW), and I'm not yet sure what happens if there is not an r in the month. I guess we will have to cross that hurdle next May. Geometry guy 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Epbr! VanTucky ^Talk 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Time limit

Just wondering if there's a time limit under which Good article nominations must be reviewed before they are de-listed? If not, what's the longest a nomination has languished before being addressed?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to think that some of waht's up now has to be close to a record, I doubt things used to hang around for 1.5 months. Wizardman 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you really are curious, you could browse through all the diffs at the bot-updated GAN report. That has a listing of all the oldest unreviewed articles, with and without "under review" tags. VanTucky ^Talk 01:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, they can't be de-listed if they have not been given GA status. They just languish in the nether regions of B-class articles until some plucky soul reviews them. What I find irritating is that after a GA fail, a lot of articles are put straight back on the list, with a few minor improvements (hoping for a kind reviewer). There should be a time limit stating how long it is allowed before they are put back on the list. Nobody can fix the problems in an article in a few days, and they should fully understand why it failed in the first place—meaning why did they put it up for a GA review in the first place when they didn't know the rules/procedure?) --andreasegde 21:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To fail or not to fail...

that is the question with Theory of Colours. Tarret has had it on hold since the 23rd, and no action was taken after the 2nd opinion was duly given by EyeSerene. Should we just fail it as an expired hold? VanTucky ^Talk 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That article has been listed since forever, but i don't see the need to step over Tarret, he's only 3 days behind. I think that if he doesn't reappear in a few more days then "Theory" should be failed.Yamanbaiia 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I say fail - there are heaps of issues that can't all be dealt with in the time given (and it's already gone over). — H₂O —  05:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 3/11/2007

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Blnguyen as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 3rd November 2007. Blnguyen is therefore awarded with The Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Blnguyen
2. Derek.cashman
3. VanTucky
4. Canadian Paul
5. Dihydrogen Monoxide.
Epbr123 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey! It's an odd-numbered month again... what happened?!?! Just kidding! ;-) Congrats Blnguyen! Dr. Cash 06:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review for To Kill a Mockingbird

Hey guys. I contributed a significant amount of information to the To Kill a Mockingbird article and nominated it for GA review. A user named Daimanta posted on the talk page that he was going to review it, but requested that citations should be put in the plot summary, that the photos of Harper Lee with Alan Pakula at the bottom of the page should have a citation to prove why Lee is a notable person, which clashed with earlier advice of a GA reviewer who said all that was needed was a fair-use rationale. So in checking Daimanta's contributions, they are quite slim. I understand one doesn't need a PhD to review articles for GA, but To Kill a Mockingbird has been an article that has been vandalized quite some in the past, and I'm getting the idea that I'm not dealing with someone who is serious. This book is huge. Someone who knows what they're doing needs to review it. Any thoughts? --Moni3 20:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Plot summaries don't need citations. It's already obvious where the info comes from. I don't know much about Fair Use Rationales, though. Perhaps a screenshot from the movie would be better? Those are easier to justify. Wrad 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to prove the subject of a picture is notable, all there needs to be for GA status is justification for the image's presence, a valid caption, and a valid fair use rationale. Homestarmy 21:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

About the image, it's not being used in the To Kill a Mockingbird (film) article, so i suggest removing that fair use. Also the "source" links nowhere. And if the reviewer doesn't like "famous individual" i suggest changing it for "Pulitzer Prize writer". -Yamanbaiia 21:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should just remove this image from the article. It is under copyright, and you need a fair use rationale for using it in this article. Wikipedia is very strict about these, and I don't think there is valid rationale. The image could probably be used (although it is not) in the film article, provided more details were added to the current rationale, but its use for Harper Lee is more delicate. A screenshot of the film would only be fair use in an article about the film, not the book. Geometry guy 21:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

GAN Nicktropolis

Macys123 (talk · contribs) put this article on hold as almost ready, but the author asked me to come and look at it anyway. Personally, I would strongly fail the article for lack of RS, lack of a lead and FU images without specific rationale. Can someone look at this please, since this is likely to end in controversy in any case. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A agree with your assessment. I would barely rate this article as a Start-class. --Bloodzombie 04:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just took a look at that article myself, and it doesn't even come close to pretty much any of the criteria (except maybe the stability criterion). I'd agree on assessing it Start-class. it's got a long ways to go. Dr. Cash 06:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a fail, has a long way to go. Large uncited patches, poorly written in places and needs major expansion. Also note that "Criticism" and/or "Controversy" sections are not kosher per WP:NPOV. If it passes I'd be inclined to take it to reassessment. VanTucky ^Talk 06:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GA citation debate

I believe I am one of the most productive WP:GA authors. At last count I had 38 current GA credits plus two that have been promoted to WP:FA. For some time, I have constantly had WP:GACs in the queue for review. In the month of October at one time I had 9 GACs, as shown here, in the in the queue. In October, I had at least 7 GA promotions: including Rush Street (Chicago), Ricky Powers, Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood), Chicago Marathon, Harold Washington Cultural Center, Haystacks (Monet), Prairie Avenue, and Rainbow/PUSH.

Last month I posted Gilbert Perreault at WP:GAR (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31#Gilbert_Perreault) because I felt it was being destroyed by another editor who was removing citations. The GAR was headed to a consensus to keep the article with the citations replaced. Then, User:Geometry guy closed the discussion as inappropriate for GAR and suggested I take it to WP:RFC.

You may recall that I had first taken the article to the talk pages of both WP:HOCKEY and WP:WPBIO without reply and then requested help at WP:PR after much back and forth editing and arguing.

Much to my surprise the RFC is headed toward a consensus to allow the removal of my citations and essentially authorizing people to remove citations at will if they are in the mood as has been pointed out in the debate. However, it is my opinion that I am being baited in the debate especially by User:Djasso who is making it appear that I am doing some unscrupulous. My most serious concern is that the way the debate is going, it seems to authorize citation removal from WP:GA beyond what I believe is appropriate and I feel I have a good sense of what is appropriate for a good article. Furthermore, the way debate is going it appears I will be handcuffed to sit by. I am very fearful that the persons I am debating with intend to tear the citations out of the GAs I have contributed and sort of need some backup so it does not happen. I had been thinking my work at finding citations was valued, but I am not so sure.

I am hoping that others here are concerned about protecting good articles will help reverse the debate back in line with the direction it was headed while at GAR. Please see Talk:Gilbert_Perreault#RFC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 08:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)