Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:15, 11 February 2011

Template:FixBunching

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 679 nominations listed and 540 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.

Shortcut

WT:GAN

Question on GAR

I've been away for more than a year, and I see that a bot has taken over the process of updating the GAN queue. How do I ensure it indicates the article I'm reviewing is on hold and uses my signature? JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! The bot has picked up that it's on hold, as you've correctly changed the {{GA nominee}} template to show this; I think the bot can be a little myopic at detecting signatures on the review page, so I've copied yours higher up the page as well, and hopefully the bot will pick it up soon. If however someone could explain exactly what the bot needs to see to note who the reviewer is (and why the pre-loaded page with the reviewer's name automatically generated isn't enough), I'd like to know too. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this worked! Bencherlite ^Talk 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is the key thing, there shouldn't be anything written above the sig if the bot is to pick up the reviewer. Also if a reviewer just creates a page but adds no content for a while, the GA report bot shows it as amalformed review. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bruno Mars/GA1

User:Silverskylines has been inactive for over a month. Would anyone mind if I took over the review? Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I was going to but my activity will be patchy for a while. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations by indefinitely blocked former editor

As my former supervisors would say, we have an "opportunity" here. Racepacket (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked earlier today for copyright violations, and he's since retired when his unblock request was denied. He has currently nominated the following here at GAN (nominations reviewed and on hold in italics):

I guess I'm asking the community what we'd like to do with the nominations. Given the recent concerns raised about his editing, I think some caution to look for copyvios may be warranted. Imzadi 1979 → 17:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; it is on hold because of scope issues, and as of now is still far from reaching the necessary level for pass. Briefly looking at the other two Washington Metro articles, it seems unlikely they will pass of similar reasons (very short history section, in part lacking references) without a partial rework/expansion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two currently under review should be failed; as for the others, they can still get a review, and can just be failed after review unless there's almost no issues. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of failing it, send the GA hold notice to the appropriate WikiProjects (like they were the editor) and use the normal 7-day hold period. --Admr Boltz 04:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any confidence whatsoever we're not considering articles chock-full of copyvios? Courcelles 05:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've failed Cornell Plantations, not for copyvio but for lack of third-party sourcing and excessive detail. I had already been looking at doing that review before knowing Racepacket was blocked/retired, but was wary of getting involved with him again (he didn't like my prior fail of Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science). Wasted Time R (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've failed the three Washington Metro-related articles. All three had partial lack of sources, and had severe lacks to the history section. Another reviewer seems to have failed Getty Villa. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failed two myself; Miami Project for copyvio, Band of the Hour for having almost no info. Only Phillips Petroleum remains. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that everything has received a review and been failed. The only review currently open is the RSMAS article, and that will probably be closed as a fail before long. Thanks folks for pitching in. I went to review the Phillips article, and it was already failed. Imzadi 1979 → 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed and failed Getty Villa & Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art as they were nowhere near ready for GA status, also there were copyvio concerns. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

User Bzuk has put up his hand to review it this page. However, when I requested him to actually review after a few days of inactivity, he said, "I am not the reviewer, merely an editor getting the article ready for review" on my talk page. It looks like that he doesn't know the process of reviewing that well. Could someone please delete the page Talk:Airbus A330/GA1 so somebody else will review the page? Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{(T • C • I love Wikipedia!)} 09:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the review page, as it seemed that the "reviewer" had no intension of reviewing the articl. Please tell me if I've messed something up. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today I created the review, and the bot updated with the original date and the original reviewer. As I am sure this isn't the last time such a misunderstanding is going to happen, is there any way to easily fix this. Of course, we have better things to do than spend hours on such an issue, but if there is a simple solution, it would be nice. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I believe that once an entry for a review has been created, the bot reads the reviewer data from the database it has created. I am not sure if it would really slow it down if something has changed, i.e. the sig of the reviewer? Jezhotwells (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section goes very sluggish

hello,

could someone review the articles in the section "Sports and recreation". It doesn't progress prudent like it should. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hitting a few where I can. You're always welcome to grab a couple to review as well. Luckily 35 is actually lower than the sports section usually is. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largely abandoned reviews by TeacherA

After a six-month absence from WP, TeacherA (talk · contribs) showed up four weeks ago and took on two reviews, Talk:Mitt Romney/GA1 and Talk:Christchurch, Dorset/GA1. The Christchurch one was never done, leading the nominator BarretBonden to ping TeacherA without response. The Romney one was done initially (in TeacherA's erratic and often cursory style; see his reviews in the past), and the nominator (me) and other editors quickly responded with comments and article changes as best we could, but TeacherA has been unresponsive since then, except for some brief comments a week ago that (as another editor pointed out) showed he hadn't actually looked at the changes that had been made to the article since the initial review. Nominators are expected to respond to GA reviews quickly (the 'hold' period is usually a week); shouldn't reviewers be held to the same?

Now, I and others have pointed out before on this page that TeacherA doesn't know what he's doing with GA reviews, and I've indicated my suspicions that TeacherA is actually a sock operation of some kind running a low-grade disruption game against the GA process. Regardless of whether that is true, is it possible to get a ban on TeacherA doing further reviews? And regardless of that, is it possible to get the two current and largely abandoned reviews reassigned to someone else? Thanks ... Wasted Time R (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ykraps is the nominator of Christchurch but I was concerned about the inactivity of TeacherA and was also going to ask if there was anyone else willing to take over the review. Would it be acceptable to remove the on review status from the GA nominee template? Barret (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can, but unfortunately there's no way to get the bot to say it needs a new review; it'll still say TeacherA, but someone does need to go and review it, since he clearly won't. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just change the page parameter from '1' to '2', and remove the "onreview" status? That way the bot recognises a new review. Or you could change the status to "2ndopinion". Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will take over the Christchurch review and use the note parameter. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any volunteers for the Romney review?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conan_(TV_series)

I'd be ready to review Conan_(TV_series), but List of Conan episodes shows that the 1st series started on November 8, 2010 and as of today (8 Feb 2011) shows 46 of to 56 (February 24, 2011) the titles and, for the last few shows, the music / entertainment have not been identified. I'm concerned that it may be premature to go for a GA - in addition to the titles and music / entertainment, I feel it would be to wait until we see further critics comments, whether there's a 2nd series, etc. What to others think? --Philcha 14:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what you have said, this might fail on lack of broadness, criterion #3. Suggest you discuss with the nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming of You (album)

Why did GAbot "failed" and removed this entry? AJona1992 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot doesn't like humans editing the WP:GAN page. As you can see from the "how to nominate an article" instructions, at the top of WP:GAN, you no longer need to edit the page directly. Just add the template to the article talkpage (which you have done) and the bot should pick it up in a few minutes. The article hasn't been actually "failed" though, just removed by the bot. As I say, it should add it back in a few minutes. --Beloved Freak 18:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't have to do anything, now? AJona1992 (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't have to. I've tweaked the talk page template too: "|status=" shouldn't be set to "onreview" until a review is in place; "|page=" should have been "1" not "2" as there is no previous review at /GA1. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright and thank you for clarifying the confussion. AJona1992 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hopefully the bot won't reinsert the duff information next time, now that the talk page template is ok. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steph Cunningham

I'm reviewing Steph Cunningham, a soap character, at Talk:Steph Cunningham/GA1. I'd like other reviewers' opinions about section Steph Cunningham#Storyline. You may find WP:WikiProject Hollyoaks useful.

I think this section is too long. --Philcha (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How can one verify the storyline. E.g. what if 2 editors disagree about what happens, or which characters are involved, or the timing and sequence of events. --Philcha (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section is too long and can be cut down. However, When writing about fictional characters the storylines don't need sources per :MOS:TV#Plot section it states: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question. An exception to this rule may be shows containing plot details that are unclear or open to interpretation, in which case the different interpretations should be sourced to reliable sources." (I do know there are FA's have been accpeted without this. Over two hundred GA's too.)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 16:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RAIN*the*ONE. Re "the television show itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the episode in question":

How can someone who didn't see the original broadcast check what happened? E.g is there a DVD set that includes all episodes in which Steph Cunningham appeared?
Steph Cunningham appeared in the show for 10 years - so about 510 weeks, about 2,550 episodes and about 1,275 hours (a little less than 2,550 episodes, see "Hollyoaks takes the leap into five nights" - Chester Chronicle). If another editor disagreed about the events or their interpretation, how could the deadlock be resolved? It's unlikely that a 3rd editor, even if he / she had a DVD of all the episodes, would want to check all the relevant ones. That is one of the functions of independent sources. --Philcha (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review not shown

The review for John Endecott has not been listed by the bot on this page. Magic♪piano 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the template on the talk page of the article hasn't been altered to say "|status=onreview" or "|status=2ndopinion" (which from a look at the review might actually be what the reviewer wants). Bencherlite ^Talk 16:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the status, though the bot can't tell who the reviewer is. Not sure how to fix that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the reviewer's signature towards the very top of the page; I don't think the bot picks it up if it's too low down, but I don't know how far down it looks before giving up. Bencherlite ^Talk 17:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot does not pick up the reviewer signature unless it is one spaced line below the bottom of the template, as far as I can tell. It also needs a time stamp. Hopefully my edit has rectified this. The instructions seem to be quite simple to me, I am surprised at how many reviews turn out to be "malformed". All that is needed is to click the follow this link in the template and then write the review underneath. Quite a few reviewers appear to use a different "cut and paste" approach. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

hello,

I reviewed the article Talk:2011 Australian Open/GA1 and all what I got are words like "thick" and "silly" even if I were friendly. I think I won't even start to review articles in GAN if I get such comments. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not my fault you can't write properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowIG (talk • contribs)

I don't think the reactions by KnowIG are very helpful -- but I also respectfully suggest that Greatorangepumpkin does not appear to have good enough English skills to be doing GA reviews. This is not, after all, the Simple English version of Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GOP, the comments KnowIG has left on the GA page are not acceptable, even if GOP's English skills are not of a high standard. I have warned the KnowIG; GOP, I recommend you fail the article since KnowIG is not going to address them sensibly. wacky wace 21:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears that User:KnowIG has been blocked for one week due to incivility. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I've deleted Talk:Svetlana Kuznetsova/GA1 (article nominated by GOP, review page created by KnowIG with the text "and don't expect me to be nice.") using that well-known speedy deletion criteria WP:POINT. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I responsed to the comments, but now in a nasty language.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diff. Hardly sensible to carry on in the same aggressive manner, let alone boast about it here, particularly when KnowIG has been blocked for incivility – do you need to be warned as well? And continuing the review in that manner isn't going to help when KnowIG comes back after his block. I strongly suggest that you either drop this review and let someone else take over, to avoid future conflict between the two of you, or at the very least undo your last comments and reply in a more constructive manner. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it really bugs me if someone speak me with as if were a clown. I think I leave the prose to someone else whose english is better than mine.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOP has agreed to withdraw from the review, so I've collapsed the previous discussion and edited the "|note=" parameter to request a new reviewer, although it will be a while before KnowIG is able to attend to it. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News

Where do notable past news events go on the nominations list? I'd like to nominate Manila hostage crisis. It looks like GA standard to me but probably won't get through first time round, however I'd like an impartial editor to review the article with GA criteria as it currently stands. --Der yck C. 01:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you start by saying on the article's talk page that you feel the article could be nominated for GA, and asking for input from editors who have contributed to it. Looie496 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality check for "Gery Chico"

Hi! Would someone please do a neutrality check on Gery Chico? Currently the article has a cleanup banner that mentions "COI" and "news release" concerns, and WP:RGA says that cleanup banners may make an article more likely to be quick-failed. I've tried my best to comply with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV standards, but I feel that I cannot remove the banner because I have a conflict of interest myself (I'm involved in one of the mayoral campaigns, not necessarily Chico's). Thus, I would appreciate it very much if an unbiased contributor would take a brief look at the article to see if it doesn't meet the quick-fail criteria. Geread (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 153: / Line 153: @@
 Where do notable past news events go on the nominations list? I'd like to nominate [[Manila hostage crisis]]. It looks like GA standard to me but probably won't get through first time round, however I'd like an impartial editor to review the article with GA criteria as it currently stands. --[[User:Deryck Chan|Der]][[User talk:Deryck Chan|yck C.]] 01:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 :I strongly suggest that you start by saying on the article's talk page that you feel the article could be nominated for GA, and asking for input from editors who have contributed to it. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 01:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
+== neutrality check for "Gery Chico" ==
+Hi! Would someone please do a neutrality check on [[Gery Chico]]? Currently the article has a cleanup banner that mentions "COI" and "news release" concerns, and [[WP:RGA]] says that cleanup banners may make an article more likely to be quick-failed. I've tried my best to comply with Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV]] standards, but I feel that I cannot remove the banner because I have a conflict of interest myself (I'm involved in one of the mayoral campaigns, not necessarily Chico's). Thus, I would appreciate it very much if an unbiased contributor would take a brief look at the article to see if it doesn't meet the quick-fail criteria. [[User:Geread|Geread]] ([[User talk:Geread|talk]]) 06:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)