Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations: Difference between revisions

This is the list of Frequently asked questions about nominating and reviewing Good articles. If you cannot find the answer to your question here, you might want to ask for assistance at the GA nominations discussion page.

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 607 nominations listed and 508 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.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15
Archive 16	Archive 17	Archive 18
Archive 19	Archive 20	Archive 21
Archive 22	Archive 23	Archive 24
Archive 25	Archive 26	Archive 27
Archive 28	Archive 29	Archive 30
Archive 31	Archive 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Dated archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Shortcut

WT:GAN

Swap reviewer?

Someone started a review of O Street Market, but to be honest, I think another user needs to step in and help. I'm not getting a lot of feedback on areas that need improvement. The suggestion to remove or cut down the "Design" section seems completely against the layout of other National Register of Historic Places articles. (a description of the building is always included in a historic property's NRHP nomination form; that's why we cover it in the articles) Is there a process whereby I can find another reviewer? APK whisper in my ear 21:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed suggestions by Sturmvogel 66 and BlueMoonset at User talk:333-blue, so I'll start working on those. APK whisper in my ear 21:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just discuss them on the review page. 333 -blue 13:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AgnosticPreachersKid, thanks for the work you've done. More is needed, but unfortunately 333-blues has approved the article despite some significant work remaining to be done. This is 333-blue's second premature approval in a row. The first one was reversed out of hand; I think this one may have gone a bit too far for that, so I may have to bring it to Good Article Reassessment unless I get concurrence for another reversal from the WikiCup judges. I don't doubt that you can do the work, but until it is done, it isn't really a Good Article. I just wish you'd had that other reviewer you asked for. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've replied at the nomination page. APK whisper in my ear 18:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, but I don't see O Street Market in the reassessment page. 333 -blue 00:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super fast-track of "new" article to GA by paid contributor

On 23 December 2015, the whole article, Billboard (magazine) was removed and replaced by a "new" article associated with a paid contributor, CorporateM. Also, on 23 December, Billboard (magazine) was nominated to be reviewed for upgrade to GA status. On 27 December 2015, SNUGGUMS took up the task of reviewing the article. When I questioned the stability of the article recently, CorporateM quoted the Good Article criteria, and didn't feel the need to wait for the article to stabilise. In this case, I might not have been pursuing the right line of questioning. I also asked: "How can the Wikipedia community have confidence that the article in its current form represents the consensus of the community after such a short time?" There was no reply.

Right now, as I am writing this post, SNUGGUMS has passed the GA nomination: has it been rushed through? Is this mode of operation in the interests of the Wikipedia Community? Is it fair to the editors of the previous version of Billboard (magazine), who have seen their work eliminated at a stroke? Is it fair to the editors who are waiting patiently at GAN for their articles to be reviewed (for months)? Are we seeing the emergence of a super-editor, who can not only get paid for their work (and good luck to them), but also get the procedures of English Wikipedia to run at super-human speed? Do other editors have concerns in this area? CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the GA review is here. It spans two weeks and 3,000 words. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 06:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see a problem here. Billboard is pretty much a household name among music fans, and Snuggums works considerably in the field (on-wiki, at least). For something this well-known, four days between nomination and the beginning of the review is not odd, albeit not as common as it used to be. I cannot agree with the implication that he violated process to get a faster review; just because someone is a COI editor does not mean WP:NPA flies out the window. There is no requirement for GAs to be reviewed within a certain time frame: some get picked up earlier, some wait ages. I've had GAs reviewed within a couple days, and I've had GAs wait three months for reviews.

Having worked with CorporateM in the past, meanwhile, I can tell you that he generally writes articles in his user space before either using his new version in the original article (or another editor to do so, if anything would be a violation of our COI policy). There is nothing against such a method, and indeed I've used it myself for a few articles (Sudirman, for one). The Billboard article itself, meanwhile, was pretty much stagnant when the information was added; nobody was actively editing, and nobody edit warred over the issue. Other than that... right above the edit window, it says "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." That includes completely eliminating text or images which may have been there before. When the change is clearly beneficial to the article, there shouldn't be a problem. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, stability was not an issue because that massive change took place before it was nominated at GAN. If on the other hand that took place during review or in between review time and nomination time, it would be unstable. I once was skeptical about massive changes myself prior to GAN back in 2014, but was assured here that articles which went through changes prior to nomination rather than during were fine in teens of stability. I most certainly did not rush anything and spent quite a while thoroughly looking through the article for problems, and spotchecked the online references for any verification issues. CorporateM addressed my listed concerns within the given timeframe that I placed the article on hold for. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)So disclaimer, I have previously reviewed one of CorporateM's articles and have had a good ammount of interaction with him, even asking for his input as a third opinion on a second opinion I gave. I'm saying this for two reasons, one to be up front about my interactions with him, but also to state how much confidence I have in his abilities as an editor.

To address your points, CaesarsPalaceDude, I looked at the review Snuggums gave and don't see any problem with it. It is in my opinion a very well done review, and better than a number of reviews I've seen. Has it been rushed through? I doubt it. You can't fault CorporateM for being timely with his responses, and Snuggums can choose to review any nomination. It's their decision. I reviewed articles that wikicup participants nominated just a few days ago. If you think that reviewers should only be allowed to review the oldest nominations, change policy, but there's nothing wrong with reviewing recently nominated articles.

To address your comments about stability and consensus, I don't think you have legitimate concerns. Criterion 5 is probably the clearest of the GA criteria: "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". There was no edit war and no content dispute, thus it passes. The replacement you are complaining about was undertaken by another editor on behalf of CorporateM because he built consensus on the talk page for the changes per the COI guidelines. Since 23 December, those changes have not been reverted. A two to three weeks on a page with 124 watchers and no reverts seems like pretty strong edit consensus to me. Wugapodes (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The stability argument was dead some time ago. I included it here for completeness. @SNUGGUMS:, why did you close the review without addressing my other issues? As it stands, the article has at least one instance of lack of source/text integrity. The text says "The Billboard Advertiser" and Lampel et al says "Billboard Advertising" for the original name of the publication. An important detail. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, sources should be Broven J, Amusement Business, and Hoffman. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the citations used for Billboard Advertising were mistaken based on File:Billboard, November 1, 1894 first issue.png, I apologize for overlooking anything. However, this sort of thing is really more for nominators to address rather than reviewers. I'll defer to CorporateM since he has better knowledge of those specific references than I do. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of being a super-user with powers to get an instant GA is of course quite silly. My nomination of Public Storage has been in the queue since last August (5 months). In my experience, in most cases, COI is a target on my head for editors that want to lash out and often the real issue is actually something else. One of the most frustrating parts of editing Wikipedia is spending time on something just to see your work deleted, modified or reworked by others and that's what Caesar is going through. In any case, I went ahead and made the edit being discussed above, but I disagree with @Snuggums: deferring to me. To the contrary, I do not own the page and defer to @CaesarsPalaceDude:. I encourage him/her to edit boldly.

PS - It's always a bit funny that editors feel the need to disclose that they have collaborated with me before as if COI is contagious ;-)

Cheers. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 16:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I didn't mean it that way. It was my way of saying "I know his style. Why? We've done work together." But yes, my experiences with other articles is that the self-declared COI is akin to painting a bulls-eye on your head. Still somewhat reeling after a brand-name product got completely rewritten by other editors to refer to all similar products (instead of a new article being written) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny story, some of my first edits to Wikipedia was this very thing (mentioning my clients on competitors' pages). Naturally I got busted and was super embarrassed! Of course I was ignorant at the time and didn't know mentioning competitors was really just linkbait and plugs. Anyways, don't mind me - didn't mean anything by it. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 18:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM:, as my very silly user name says, I'm a dude (male). When editors assume they know the motivations of other editors, they quite often get it wrong. I have done very little editing on Billboard (magazine), and don't feel any sense of loss or need to lash out. Let's look at it from a different perspective. What we have is volunteer editors who should be professional, but some of them aren't, and paid editors who are professional, but are very unsubtle, at times, in their treatment of the volunteers.

Now let's look at the timeline:

05:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC): CorporateM posts at the Talk page re draft
05:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC): CorporateM contacts User:Geraldshields11 saying: "I saw your name in the article's edit history and thought you may be interested."
13:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC): Geraldshields11 says he'll take a look
13:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC): Geraldshields11 moves the draft to mainspace
14:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC): CorporateM is so surprised that the article has been reviewed so quickly
14:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC): CorporateM says: "I've taken it the GAN route, but I'll probably delist it as unstable if any regular page watchers raise concerns, given how quickly the draft was just merged."
19:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC): In reply to my concerns how quick things were moving, CorporateM says: "To say a nominator must wait several months to ensure the article is steady is not the intended meaning of stable within the context of GA reviews." (I hadn't mentioned a time frame of "several months")

I really do understand what you said about "painting a bulls-eye on your head". On the other hand, how do you expect to avoid the bulls-eye getting a lot bigger with a timeline of actions and statements like that? I like articles being improved. I like articles passing GAN. I even like things happening quickly at Wikipedia (for a change). The other side of the coin is that every editor has the responsibility to take the rest of the community with him while making great strides forward. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CaesarsPalaceDude: What outcome are you looking for? You said yourself that it is not an issue of stability: The stability argument was dead some time ago. If you believe the review was passed and should not have been, open a reassessment where the concerns can actually be addressed. If you have concerns about the GA criteria or policy on the order in which reviews are undertaken, start an RFC and try and get consensus for a change. If you have problems with CorporateM's editing, that's not a GA issue and shouldn't be brought up on the GAN talk page. If you have a particular complaint related to the GAN process that can be solved here, let us know, otherwise I think this discussion should be closed as I don't see it going anywhere productive. Wugapodes (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Wugapodes: I'll be brief. I urge User:CorporateM to avoid nominating an article on the same day that the draft was introduced. Someone might start reviewing it after four days instead of the usual four months, and cause other editors to draw their own conclusions (rightly or wrongly). It's his reputation on the line, not mine. There are just a few minor loose ends:

"Early history", 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: "He improved editorial and opened new offices..." He improved editorial what? editorial policy, editorial practices, editorial style
"Focus on music", 1st sentence: "Billboard's editorial changed as technology in..." Same question. Billboard's editorial what changed?
"Changes in ownership", 3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: "In 1994, Billboard Publications and its was sold to a Dutch media... " its what were sold?

That's all from me. Goodnight and good luck! CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, I made changes to the article. Geraldshields11 (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian 8076

Adrian 8076 nominated more than a dozen articles for GA on 20 January alone. I left a message advising that this is probably not a good idea. I don't know if there's consensus to just batch revert or give the editor enough rope. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So would this be the appropriate place to give Jakec the fisheye for ten still-active nominations but only one review? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of GA nominations open because I write a lot of GA-worthy articles, not because I just nominate whatever I find. They're painfully slow to go through the pipeline, that's why there are so many of them up. Look at the nomination dates and you'll see they're months apart. Also, the claim that I've done "only one review" is flat-out wrong: I've done at least ten.

As to the OP, if they're not drive-by nominations, then I don't see the problem. It's not like more than one or two are going to be reviewed at any one time. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a word with Adrian 8076 earlier today giving advice. Having a lot of GAs in the pipeline is not a problem, I have quite a few myself, but if any are not accompanied by a significant amount of expansion and copyediting, I immediately get suspicious. I would have quickfailed Alan Rickman but I couldn't obviously see a way of doing so bar maybe due weight on the "death" section and not being comprehensive enough. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There were thirteen drive-by nominations today, plus two more in the past two days; I reverted them all because this is someone who clearly has no clue about the GA process or criteria. This lack of understanding was also demonstrated by a quickfail done immediately after today's drive-by noms; I have reverted that as well and put the nomination back into the GAN pool with its seniority intact. (The messages left on Adrian 8076's talk page by Chris Troutman and others, including myself, have just been deleted.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion requested at Mustafizur Rahman

A second opinion is being requested on the GA review of Mustafizur Rahman. If an experienced reviewer would be willing to lend some time to give input on the review page, it would be very appreciated. Thanks. Wugapodes (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HIV immunity

Appears to have been listed as a good article since Jan 2015, but without evidence of any review. It's 1850 characters long and probably at the wrong name. Can anyone shed any light? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: My best guess is that User:Valoem copied the Project banners from Talk:HIV. In the absence of any formal review, I think this would be a high Start class article, and might warrant lower priority as well. The folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine might be able to best assess and spruce-up this article. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: Every now and then I see articles that are assessed as GA class, even though they never went though a GA review. See this discussion for further guidance: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Procedure for cleaning up "Good Articles" that never went through a GA review?. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense, Animalparty! I'll blank the reviews, assess for WP:Viruses and leave the rest blank. Thanks for the quick responses. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A number of years ago, we had a drive to sweep and fix up older good articles to ensure they still met the criteria. Perhaps we need another one of these? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reviewing drive

I was thinking of putting in a grant request for a contest in March. Well two contests, one a content building contest like Wales or Vital articles or whatever and the other a GA reviewing drive. £150 in Amazon vouchers allocated to a GA reviewing drive, with £100 given to the best GA reviewer in a month and £25 runners up. More kudos would be given to tackling older nominations and overall winners would be judged on the quality of their reviews as well as numbers, otherwise people would just speedy pass as many as possible! I want to do a trial, but something like that which might urge some editors to do more reviews and increase the quality of their reviews might work. Worth a try I think. I think part of the current problem is that articles often sit around stale for six months and nobody feels compelled to review them. That has a negative effect on editors who want to promote articles to GA and many give up on nominating things out of frustration. If we can get some sort of mechanishm which rewards editors who produce quality work and nominate articles and something at the same time to encourage people to get them reviewed I think we can increase the rate that articles are promoted and increase the quality of reviewing and articles at the same time. Potentially something could also be organized to run a sweeps on existing articles and ensure listed articles are up to 2016 quality standards. Again rewards would be given to editors who re review and improve/retain the most articles. That could be considered later, but we need to start somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm always one to support trying to get rid of backlogs, you might run into problems as the WP:WIKICUP is going on at that time which also is a competition that rewards quality contribution and reviews. That's not to say don't do it, I just think the time frame might need to be shifted so that we get more participation. I would also recommend talking to the judges of the WP:GACUP as they might have some insight on how to run the reviewing drive. Wugapodes (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any involvement in this year's competition, but certainly the first round last year saw an overlap with the GA Cup in the first round. All I noticed was that competitors entered reviews in both competitions rather than any specific decline. A March start for a reviewing drive would coincide with the first month of the second round when the competitors get cut down to a maximum of 64. Personally, I think that this would be seen as a boon by most competitors as it'll mean that their GAs could be reviewed quicker. Miyagawa (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 :While I'm always one to support trying to get rid of backlogs, you might run into problems as the [[WP:WIKICUP]] is going on at that time which also is a competition that rewards quality contribution and reviews. That's not to say don't do it, I just think the time frame might need to be shifted so that we get more participation. I would also recommend talking to the judges of the [[WP:GACUP]] as they might have some insight on how to run the reviewing drive. [[User:Wugapodes|Wugapodes]] ([[User talk:Wugapodes|talk]]) 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 ::I don't have any involvement in this year's competition, but certainly the first round last year saw an overlap with the GA Cup in the first round. All I noticed was that competitors entered reviews in both competitions rather than any specific decline. A March start for a reviewing drive would coincide with the first month of the second round when the competitors get cut down to a maximum of 64. Personally, I think that this would be seen as a boon by most competitors as it'll mean that their GAs could be reviewed quicker. [[User:Miyagawa|Miyagawa]] ([[User talk:Miyagawa|talk]]) 21:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
+== Image size discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images]] ==
+Opinions are needed on the following matter: [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size]]. A [[WP:Permalink]] for it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images&oldid=701556340#Fixing_images_below_the_default_size here]. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their [[m:Help:Preferences|preferences]]). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the '''[[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Amended proposal (2A)|1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection]].''' [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 07:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)