Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

RFC on quickfail criteria

Opened at Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria#RFC: New wording of the quickfail criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Help -- Improperly assessed GA

Here is an instance where an article was classed as GA, but no assessment was ever done: [1] . Queries: Is a GAR the proper way to go? As the particular article will fail GAR, it would then, in one sense, qualify as a "former" GA. I'll look for guidance here. – S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not a GA, some editor just added a WikiProject Economics GA assessment. However, the WikiProject Economics GA assessment instructions requires that the article be both nominated at GAN and that it gained GA-status - neither of which were done/happened. All that needs to be happen is that the WikiProject Economics assessment is removed or adjusted to (for example) Start class: the article is somewhere between Start and C class and I'd suggest that "Start" is more appropriate. Since the article was never submitted to GAN, a WP:GAR is unnecessary - its not a GA, so also remove the GAR template from the article's talkpage. 17:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) I would contend that it being listed as a GA is entirely invalid. The person who worked on the article self-assessed it as a GA without any review, which is something he can't do. It's unfortunate no one has seen this oversight for nearly 3 years but this was never listed at WP:GA so it's never been acknowledged as one anywhere but in the wikiproject box. but it's pretty clear cut to me that the article should just be changed to a stub or C-class article; there was never an "assessment" to begin with, so there's nothing to reassess. —Ed!^(talk) 17:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! – S. Rich (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks S, for dealing with the GAR; it's a good thing that no GAR is needed. I'll keep it in mind for future cases. --Forich (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Clear video game backlog?

There is a discussion going on at the Video games WikiProject about cleaning out the backlog for video game nominations. As you know, there are some month-old GANs that are in need of reviewing there, but there are also second opinion requests for these as well. If anyone is willing to step up and clear out the backlog, please do so. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The backlog there is due to one editor who has burnt a few bridges when it comes to reviewers. AIRcorn (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he has burnt a few bridges when it comes to reviewers. The editor in question, Niemti, is currently the subject of an ongoing RFC for disruptive behavior related to video game articles and it seems unlikely he'll be responsive to the RFC. At this point, what is the best possible solution? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea. A limit on how many nominations an editor could have at once would help with the backlog in these situations at least, but that has failed to get consensus the last few times it has been proposed. It also doesn't solve the underlying issue. I guess we could propose a motion to ban them from submitting articles here, but I don't know whether that would gain consensus either. There is no real ban worthy issue with the nominations that I can think of. It just seems to be a case of an editor that doesn't play well with others. AIRcorn (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Part of the RFC is about his behaviour at GANs as detailed here. Niemti (as HanzoHattori) was previously banned because of chronic incivility and inability to cooperate with others back in 2008, was unbanned in 2012 and he narrowly avoided that same fate this past November. We should go ask the VG project about this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say that any decisions regarding his Good articles should be discussed/made here (or even better at WT:GAN as it has a higher traffic flow). Looking at the VG thread most of the respondents seem to have wiped there hands of this. AIRcorn (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have started a centralised discussion at the GAN talk page and I also feel that this backlog cleanup needs to happen sooner rather than later. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Clearing out the VG backlog. Please direct your comments there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Really need a qualified 2nd Opinion on Talk:Thomas Traherne/GA1

I nominated Thomas Traherne for GA in December, it finally got a reviewer (User:Michael!) but from his comments he seems to not have read large swaths of the article he's reviewing, admitted he's not qualified to finish the review right from the start, and exhibits being rather oblivious to policies/guidelines. His rigor seems to be demanding the scrutiny of a FAC, asking for expansion of content that goes beyond the wise limits of WP:SUMMARY and WP:DETAIL and frankly inappropriate for a simple GA nomination. I'd like a second opinion from a qualified reviewer, because his comments are becoming incredibly frustrating.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked reviewer

I posted this at the help desk, but have been advised to take it here. I'm in the process of having Bradley Wiggins reviewed, but the reviewer GAtechnical has been given an indefinite block. Of course I'm not going to wait until it's lifted, if ever. What's my next move? Does it need to be closed and renominated? BaldBoris 17:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't know whether you should close & renominate because that would look like the GAR failed. It seems that GAtechnical is the sock of a banned user, not just simply blocked. So, why don't you go and remove GAtechnical as the reviewer? What you'd need then is a new reviewer. Someone from this project might pitch in, or you could post notices on the talk pages of the various WikiProjects which pertain to your article. It looks like you've already addressed the editing concerns, so the review should be quick. (Sorry, I'm not in a WP:DIY mood right now. ). – S. Rich (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

GAN discussion

After Futuretrillionaire quick-failed Jill Valentine due to sourcing concerns as explained at RSN, a discussion about GANs has started over at WT:GAN#Problem: reviewers often not knowing/understanding policies/guildelines, and/or choosing to "ignore" them. Your comments would be appreciated there. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User conduct discussion regarding Niemti

I don't know if everyone is aware of this, but there is an ongoing user conduct discussion regarding Niemti, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject, since he contributes to many good articles. It can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)