Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

Turn off "New section" link in {{good article tools}}

Will it be ok if I add to the above template? Since we're not allowed == Level 2 == headers in reviews, the new section interface isn't of any help. RainCity471 (whack!) 21:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

ASIMO

Hello GA-ers! I would like to ask something about the ASIMO article. According to its talk page the article has been assessed for GA-class. However, there is no GA template that recognizing the article as a GA. Also, in its review, I don't know if it passed or failed. The reviewer did not make a single edit on the article. So what would be the assessment of this page? Thanks. :) Mediran (t • c) 11:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a tricky one. You're right that the review appears to have had no conclusion.[1] But the page's history is complicated--could we just be missing it?

I'll ask on the article's talk page about its status. If no one replies in a week or two, I'd say it should be delisted. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

My view is that this is not a GA. There is certainly a review on 19 July 2007 (as listed above) and the article was initially given a WP:Japan GA assessment, but the article never seems to have been listed as a GA. It was also later given a WP:Robotics GA assessment, down-rated to B-class and then reinstated. I came into Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps (see also here) towards the end and the aim of that project (which was achieved) was "to double-check every Good Article passed before 26 August 2007 for continued compliance with the good article criteria.". To be able to do that we had a list (here ). The article is not on that list, it has no GA-star and it's not listed here in Category:GA-Class Good articles. Conclusions: it was never listed at GA, it only has two WikiProject GA listings and both of those WikiProjets in their quality statements require GA-class articles to have gone through the GA process: which was in fact started but not completed. Pyrotec (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2014 WikiCup will begin in January. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, 106 users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Signature by bot posts is improper

This is with regards to the notices that the bot posts notifying the nominator that a review has been started. Having such a notice is a GREAT idea, and thanks for the efforts of whoever is handling. But the signature that the bot is placing on those posts is that of the reviewer. (and IMHO the "on behalf of" notice earlier in the post does not make this OK) I hate to get tough on this, but it is saying things that I would not have said and putting my signature on the post....this is a violation of policy.

Having such a notice is a GREAT idea, and thanks for the efforts of whoever is handling.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I also wrote at the bot page and they said to come here. Also, the bot is putting false information which is that the review will take less than a week, and then signing my names as the author of the false information. Can someone tell me who controls the bot text? The bot is violating policy by signing other peoples names to something tat they didn't write. I've moved one baby step up the "ornery" scale regarding this. Could someone respond? Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Revisit one idea for backlog reduction

I'd suggest revisiting one idea for backlog reduction. That would be a requirement for nomination that there be an editor who, to an at least limited extent is willing to engage in the review discussion. In my medium amount of experience (57 reviews) articles without that never pass and are a waste of reviewer time / resources. I'm guessing that this describes 20% of the articles I reviewed and all were non-passes due to other problems. The "fail" instructions make this worse by in essence calling for a full review of failed articles, even when there is nobody there. There is no graceful way to "fast fail" these. Not that this is totally accurate, but, roughly speaking, just imagine where the backlog would be if that "20%" of reviews had instead been directed at articles that didn't have this issue. The answer: zero backlog. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A long while back, we used to have "quick fail" for articles that are nowhere near ready. But then rational thoughts gave way to WP:BUREAUCRACY because some believe that it "sometimes irritates editors who are keen to improve the article" (per exact wording on Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles) so that "quick fail" was stripped down to bare bones and discouraged from using it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

COI Request

I have a COI with Viralheat. The GA reviewer mentioned the article may not be stable enough, because this discussion has not yet resolved. There are no edit-wars, however, consensus on the proposed changes is unclear. I was hoping someone might be willing to review the discussion and edit boldly so we can check it off the GA list as I don't feel it is appropriate for me to make any changes in this area on account of my COI. CorporateM (Talk) 16:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:The Core Contest

running for a fifth time - 10 Feb to 9 march....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)