In regards of a recent copyright related note you left, the text I had added was inspired by a translation of the initial article [[1]] and similar. Very close indeed to the article you pointed, some historical facts would be worth remaining. In light of the rather directed comment left in the history, I believe this is the first and last contribution of mine to those pages talk.
Martin Luther
Yuck. Looks like the debate has gotten heated at times. How do you think I could best help? Are you looking for a sort of informal meidation, or just seeking outside views, or something else? I'll be happy to help if I →can. Johntex\talk19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Augustine of Hippo page vandalized
Hi - just wanted you to know a fair bit of damage had been done to the page on Augustine of Hippo. I have reverted to the latest, undamaged complete page I could find - but some changes for the better may be lost. Could you take a look too? The repairs may take a while, and I have only a little time at the moment. Thanks in advance Cor Unum10:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Hey my buddy, how have you been? I would like you to take a look at the image of Rear Admrial Rafael Celetino Bemitez Image:Rear Admiral R.C. Benitez.jpg. Now, notice his Silver Star ribbon below his "Sub Wings". If I'm not mistaken, he was awarded more then one Silver Star Medal. What do you think? Tony the Marine05:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Luther notes
I don’t understand your point, will ask in the Talk section.
I might not be looking at the right diffs, but it looks like all he did was add maybe one or two "cite" tags and change a bunch of puncuation marks? Homestarmy22:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well i've always done it the ref=name way, but if he's gotten them all out of order that can't help the article out, i'll read the conversation again. Homestarmy00:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really absent
Only two dust ups? You must be going soft!
I've not been editing at the cliff-face because I'm working offline on the sections from Wartburg to Peasants' War, getting the length down but trying to somehow fold in more substance, while tweaking out what I can't substantiate. It's very difficult. I do read everything at ML, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy getting into all the passing disputes (you see, I regard you as the sentry on the border, while I lurk in cowardly comfort with the port and the cigars). I must say, I'd rather hang-glide naked through a Borneo bat cave than get involved with the Luther and the Jews battle zone.
But I couldn't resist that "according to tradition" bait, even though I know you would have stepped in. I suppose "nailed" isn't strictly wrong, since it's part of the tradition (goodness knows why); but I somehow can't see Luther, confrontational chap though he was, marching up Wittenberg High Street with a bag of nails and a claw hammer and vandalising the expensive door of a church which employed him. qp10qp01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't have tacks? If that's the American word for drawing pin, you may be right, but they had tacks as I know them; delicate ones were used in leatherwork, for example, and in shoes. I'm aware of this bulletin-board point, and so I concede that Luther and others might have carried miniature hammers about their persons with which to tap pins into wood, but posted at least saves me imagining Luther as some mighty Thor of the door, his angry blows resounding through history; and it suits better his activity in the painting you describe. It's slightly annoying that we have to have this business in the article at all, but such a potent myth must be acknowledged, of course.
Thank you. You know maybe you didn't serve however, the your dedication to all things military in Wikipedia has honored us who served and therefore in my book makes you a hero. For me it has been a great honor to have befriended a somebody like you. Oh don't forget to zoom in on Rafael Celestino Benitez's image and confirm what I suspect about his 2nd Silver Star Medal. Tony the Marine16:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the image. I don't have a high res., but if you zoom it just a bit, yoou will notice that he has a devise in the middle of his Silver Star ribbon which is under his sub-wings. Now, I'm sure that it is a silver star devise which would mean that he was awarded two Silver Star Medals. If you notice the same thing then we have something there. Tony the Marine00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Confused about vandalism
Dear CTSWyneken,
I received a message at 11:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC) from you stating that "If you continue [vandalising] you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others."
I am confused about what was considered vandalism and why. I only contribute positively and constructively, and I have never vandalised Wikipedia. In fact, I have created a group on MySpace that worships Wikipedia...
Confusedly,
Mavaddat
Thanks for the correcting the mistake, CTSWyneken. I was indeed correcting the link. The first link did not work, so I did a search on Google and found the second link (the one I posted) to have the referenced video clip. The clip itself is not obscene, except for some profane language by Penn (Teller doesn't talk), throwing Bibles, and impersonating the King.
Mav
GA article now FAC
Hello,
Sometime ago you did the GA review of the Joseph W. Tkach article. Since then a lot of progress was made. I have favour to ask of you. The article is now a FAC. I am uncomfortable about soliciting votes (conflict of interest), so I was wondering if you could ask your colleagues to review and vote on it. Thanks. --RelHistBuff08:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Quoting sources
Just read you note, and I'm glad you enjoyed my contributions on the article on Martin Luther. However, I must confess I was puzzled at your request that I cite the source(s), since I did. I went back just a few moments ago to make sure, and, yup, sure enough:
"You plea to be heard..." [#47]
"I wish you peace and love in Christ....dear Katie..." [#105]
The only thing I can think of is the line or two I added to the beginning of Herr Luther's famous speech before the Assembly:
"Since your Majesity desires simplicity..."
I didn't cite a source b/c for the simple reasons that:
a)There was already a source cited for that speech itself and I didn't want to clutter the blockquote.
b)It was just one or two lines grafted on the main truck on the piece, and hopefully enhanced somewhat but distracted not at all from the body/message of the text.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and your love ones. This year I have the whole family over (last year my daughter, son-in law and little Nina spent it in Iowa). We'll put up the Christmas decos after dinner.
I'm going to work on some of the MoH's soon. I created a Category: Recipients of the Silver Star medal and added some names. Maybe you know of some people who were awarded the Silver Star medal and who do not have that cat. on their pages. You can help me out by adding the cat.
I was wondering if you might have the time to comment on the Agripinna opera GA review, the discussion is proving quite....contentious, and I think more editors might be able to help form a real supermajority one way or another. I have the feeling that a no consensus result would be bad, as some people don't seem to like how many reviwers interpret the good prose criteria more strictly than others :/. Homestarmy18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review away! It's currently on the candidates list. I think you'll find that I tried to explain any technical terms, but if you feel that improvements can be made then please feel free to review/comment. Best, Moreschi20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opus Dei rewrite-- still a GA after rewrite?
I have done a major rewrite on the Opus Dei article and am requesting comments on its talk page. Although I personally believe the new article is a very good one, out of fairness, I went ahead and removed the GA tag. It was suchh a big rewrite, the article should be re-reviewed. Since you did the GA review, would you look over the rewrite and add back the GA tag if you feel the new article merits it? I also would greatly value any comment you'd like to make on the RFC. --Alecmconroy08:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your help on the page. I think that once the article is stable and we get the NPOV tag down, it has the makings of FAC. If you have any suggestions for how to improve it, or would like to further help out in the ensuing discussion about the NPOVness of the article, it would be greatly appreciated. :) --Alecmconroy13:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Review Ebionites Article
Loremaster and I would appreciate it if you would look over the Ebionites article and provide suggestions to get it ready for nomination as a featured article. We recently finished incorporating the suggestions of Slrubenstein from peer review. Slrub suggested you would be a good person to work with to further improve the article and get a diverse perspective. I see you know Alecmconroy. Alec has been acting as our RFC to referee disputes over the article. Ovadyah11:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey CTS, since you're looking into these things, I thought I'd point you to the discussion ongoing at Image talk:Cilice3.jpg. It's an image used in OD artile. There's a pretty strong consensus for using it in the article-- it's been in the article for several months, long before I did the rewrite last week. Nonetheless, User:Dominick has been trying to get the image deleted for copy.
In response, I've got an editor trying to say it's a copyright violation. Obviously, I won't ask ya'll to comment on the related issue of whether the image should be on the article, but could someone clear of the copyright issue. The history of the image is
I personally made the image myself-- it is a derivative work using GFDLed material I downloaded from Wikimedia Commons. I released the image I created under the GFDL (as, I believe, the GFDL requires me to do).
The original work I modified was downloaded from [3]. It was uploaded in August 2004 by its author(s) who released under the GFDL.
So, it's an open and shut case of an OK image-- apparently Dominick is under the impression that the original author can't properly release it unless he issues a web-accessable "official statement" of some sort. Could you look over the issue and confirm that the copyrightholder's written statement is all that is required, not a web-accessable formal statement.
Hey - Quick note regarding your deletion of the "exodus from the church" paragraph. I think I take issue with the assertion that Lutherans believe the church "left them". In the sense that's obviously meant by the deleted text, I doubt I personally know any Lutherans who would have any issues with "left the Catholic church", and I know a few hundred.
Perhaps we could come up with a wording that better fits your take on things without losing the essential meaning of the paragraph? Brennen21:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It hardly strikes me as "very biased", coming from a once fairly immersed LCMS background, but I shan't argue credentials. I mean no disrespect, but I think it's possible that your close relationship with a strain of Lutheranism is blurring your perception of bias here. At any rate, I'll probably try to come up with a version that doesn't set anyone off too badly.
I agree that the article could use some serious work, but refactoring what's already present seems to me like a workable approach. Brennen22:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the infant baptism bit, the individual in question isn't arguing that Lutherans don't believe in infant baptism, or that it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. It's more that s/he wanted to include a rant about the "unbiblical" nature of said practice, which obviously has no place in the article. There's a chance it's just Stephen Colbert inspired trolling/vandalism anyway - see Talk:Lutheranism#Controversy_section. Brennen17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. The logical outcome of this sort of thing is detailing the complete objections of every other denomination, sect, religion, & ideological position to the individual points of Lutheran belief listed in the article, and then do the same for every other article with ideological content... But I suppose the absurdity is self evident. Brennen20:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcom wagon message, it was very helpful. I have a question for you. I recently created the Future of Forestry page only to have it nominated for deletion. It's been several days since any discussion on its AFD page and the last few people all said it should be kept...so can I just go onto the entry page and delete the "This article is being considered for deletion..." code?
O.K., so maybe you don't believe in Santa, but I still want to wish you and your loved ones a "Happy Holidays" and all of the happiness in the world and the best new year ever. Your friend, Tony the Marine23:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, CTSWy. I'm inclined to revert your addition to the second paragraph, which implies that it is only a matter of some scholars' opinion that the Trinity is not expressly stated in Scripture. If it were, opinion would not be concerning whether the Trinity is taught, but whether the teaching is Scripture. As it is, the controversy is concerning whether the the doctrine should be concluded from the Scriptures as a whole, not whether the doctrine is anywhere stated in the Bible.
I've followed your editing for years, now (especially admiring what you've done on articles concerning Lutheranism), and would not wish to provoke you by a hasty revert. Shall we discuss this? — Mark (Mkmcconn) **22:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll think about the paragraph, and about how to express it in a way that doesn't imply that the question of whether the doctrine is biblical has been decided to the satisfaction of modern scholars. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **01:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review
Ebionites article passed GA. We are having a 2nd round of peer review to get it ready for FA nomination. Your perspective on changes needed to make it FA quality would be appreciated. Ovadyah16:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Season's Greetings
Happy Christmas and a merry New Year! Keep up the good work at ML!
(I've made the mistake of trying to rebuild other articles from scratch and have become distracted from the Luther article, for the time being. Will be back, for sure.) qp10qp18:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was reading over the article again, and wondered if the word "ubiquity" is still used in Lutheran definitions, to understand "Real Presence". The article does not use this word, which has been a cause of difference between the Calvinist Reformed and the Lutherans. Is the omission an error? — Mark (Mkmcconn) **01:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my apologies - if you'll note from my contributions, I was doing a lot of editing, and was kind of on autopilot. Upon reviewing it, I think the article meets most of the criteria for WP:NPOV just fine - I was mainly focusing on comments like (especially notable due to the use of our):
In December 1995, the staff voted to restructure our educational day to the 4x4 block format. The 4x4 scheduling format at R. Nelson Snider High School has students taking just four classes every day. There is more time for instruction and learning, with less time used for getting to and from classes and for classroom management. This productive use of school time translates into potential for additional labs, field trips, interdisciplinary activities and intense focus on subject matter.
This isn't exactly a cut-and-dry issue, as it's portrayed here, but it's hardly a serious POV problem - which is why I didn't go so far as adding a POV-related template. The clean-up is probably still necessary, though. I apologize if I came off as vindictive, or anything - it was mostly meant as a note to any clean-up editors. Thanks for calling it to my attention, though. --Haemo23:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're a Seminary teacher type scholar person, (I'm bad with labels when things get all collage related heh) I was wondering if you might perhaps know of any good, general sources on the history of Christian Evangelism, or certain types of notable evangelism. I have recently come into the acquisition of a large amount of free time on my hands, and assuming my school does not once again rob me of two more successive weekends and all the weekdays in between with mountains of busy work, I want to dedicate my efforts to Approaches to evangelism. It was a very poor article when I first saw it, and it still is, but as I go look up references for each type of Evangelism I thought you might know some sources which might be highly, well, scholarly-ish for the task :/. I've already re-written the intro, which i'll probably end up changing as the article grows, and started working on the Open-air preaching section. I've only used a single article written by Charles Spurgeon and the Bible as references so far, and look how much Spurgeon alone got me from just one of his articles.... Homestarmy22:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone wants to rename the Categories of the Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Silver Star and Bronze Star Medals, to something like this: "Category:Recipients of the United States Purple Heart medal".
I personally oppose this move because these military decorations are only awarded om the United States and therefore cannot be confused with some other country's decoration. I see no need for the move. As a person who has been involved with United States military related articles, I invite you to express your opinion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Thank you, Tony the Marine02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Christendom"
Hi! I just wanted to give you a few examples of how JWs use the term "Christendom." It is a special usage, not common usage. That is one reason I think it is POV. Check these examples out. They are the tip of the ice berg:
You are invited to participate in Lutheranism WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Lutheranism. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated! ~~~~
I think that I have made some improvements in the intro, but you know me, I'm not that great when it comes to prose. Do you think that it has the makings of a "GA". Tony the Marine21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, seeing that you have looked at a number of GA nominees, could you have a look at this before it is nominated - just to see if it is ready. I know we have a couple of refs to fill in - but I have seen articles go through GA without perfect referencing (perhaps because perfection - as such - is more expected of FA's). If there is anything besides the ref that would be needed for the GA, could you leave a note on the peer review? Thanks. -- Pastordavid19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O Sacred Head
Not to step on anyone's toes, but just how is "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded" specifically Lutheran in a way that many other popular hymns among Lutherans are not? I just ask because it's not one we sing very often (this coming Friday being the exception), in my experience it's not very popular, and it's use is far from restricted to Lutherans. If there's some overarching reason for keeping the Lutheranism tag on it, I'm all for that, but I have to say that as I understand the subject now there is little specific reason for keeping it.
jackturner318:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, if you look the article states that St. Bernard is the author of the hymn and that Paul Gerhardt is the translator. If this is incorrect, I would encourage you to fix it. Second, I can understand that in your experience the hymn is imminently popular. Third, you are correct that this hymn would a tighter association with Lutheranism than some/most of the politicians that are also tagged, but maybe that says more about tagging politicians and celebrities than it does about this particular hymn. Like I said, I personally have no problem with keeping the tag. I just think that the "Lutheran" aspect needs to be emphasized in the article if at all possible. Maybe you're just the person to do that.
Fair enough. Since I'm almost done with the assessment of articles in the project (and I'd hate to leave just one without assessment), what would you recommend its importance as?
I'll err on the high side and put it at mid. Like you said, some people can't imagine Lent without it, and then there are parishes like mine where it never gets sung. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
The Ebionites article has been nominated for Featured Article. You are invited to show your support or suggest further improvements to the article. Ovadyah08:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to fix up the BLS page so that the NPOV and No Source tags can be removed. I've started working on it but I don't really understand what the standards exactly are. I mean, when all the information is on a website, and you have a link to that website, how many outside sources do you need? --Uac153004:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, I don't know that I would call your edit harassment or vandalism, but it is probably best to just let it go. The consensus seems to be that, while blanking one's talk page without archiving is frowned on, it is still allowed. -- Pastordavid21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CTSWyneken, After being away from WP for nearly a year. I had no intention of having any contact with you whatsoever. Wikipedia is certainly large enough. Unfortunately, within approximately one hour of my return, without warning or discussion I find you improperly reverting me on my user talk page. When asked to stop by an admin, you then make defamatory posts about me on the talk pages of others. Please do not stalk me or make gratuitously disparaging statements about me.
Please read WP:HARASS. "Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely."
"One of the tendencies of harassers is to come up with new and inventive ways to plague their victims."
You have been politely asked by a highly respected admin that is familiar with this case to, "Please don't harass him." And, I have cited you the administrative consequences if you continue. I hope there is no need to discuss this further. Just leave me be.Doright21:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Doright -- Please stop harassing me. This has been your pattern throughout your editing on Wikipedia. I do not have the time or the energy to pursue this with you. So, please, just drop it. --CTSWyneken(talk)02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Restoring Doright's Talk Page
Folks, I do not intend to pursue this point. I restored the page because I thought blanking was against the rules and we were supposed to do that. In fact, I once had a user restore my talk page I had blanked in the process of archiving it. Since JayG reverted it, I assumed I was in error here and just dropped the matter. The above warning is a case in point as to why user talk pages should be archived and not blanked. As Homes said, it is certainly out of place. Well, you can certainly look at my talk page archives if you want to see why I do not intend to engage either Doright or Mantanmoreland on this. --CTSWyneken(talk)14:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Luther WikiProject Collaboration
On another topic, I am setting up a collaboration for WikiProject Lutheranism. I am torn between choosing a big topic (like Lutheranism) or improving the Lutheran section/perspective on another article (something like Ordination). Thoughts or suggestions? -- Pastordavid21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help us improve the information about Lutheranism on Wikipedia. CAST YOUR VOTE for the next collaboration
Baltimore Lutheran School (again)
I undid some vandalism of the BLS page - they changed the school motto to "All to the Glory of allah."
There have been problems with anonymous editors since I put the page up. Some of them are high school students - either from our school or other schools, but there are also many opponents of the school (you can check out the links on the site if you wish).
Can we block unregisted users from editing the page? How do I go about that?
Bob, I responded to the current thread on the talk page, and I also posted a notice on the editor's talk page. Hopefully this will be quickly dropped as counter-productive. I apologize that you have been subjected to this sort of questioning of your character - you have not done anything to deserve it. -- Pastor David†(Review)16:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you all know, some hacker cracked my password and I have been stripped of my admin powers. I can understand an admin. being blocked, but stripped of his powers without a fair hearing or consensus, I can't. I have stated that I changed my password and would like my powers back, however the chastizing going on in [[6]] has sadden me. It doesn't matter how many articles you have written, contributions you have made or how many years you have dedicated to making this project a credible one. A hacker, it seems has the power of making people consider you an untrustful person and turning some people in the community against you.
I have never abused of my powers and I have used Wikipedia as a medium to educate others. Yes, I have no regrets about having made so many contributions to the Pedia. I exhort all of my friends here to make sure that their passwords are strong ones so that you will not have to go through what I am going through.
I did promise some of my friends a couple of articles and as a good Marine I will keep my promise. To my friends here, Thank you for your friendship. Tony the Marine00:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your editing
Do not interfere with the talk page anymore, and do not remove any more criticism from articles related to Martin Luther. As things stand, you should probably not be editing that article at all, at least not until this discrepancy is resolved, so I hope you will do whatever you can to clear it up. This is a serious matter of what (on the face of it) appears to be a deliberate attempt to distort what the last sermon said, although I very much hope there is another explanation. SlimVirgin(talk)19:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an attack on your church. Do not raise that particular straw man again, because it is offensive.
It is a criticism of your editing, your writing, your poor use of sources, your constant defense of Martin Luther, your filibustering on talk pages, your admission that part of your job description is to create online resources about Luther, and now what appears (on the face of it) to be a deliberately distorted description of Luther's last sermon. SlimVirgin(talk)19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't good enough. You knew that was a seriously distorted account of the final sermon, and you let it sit there for 18 months. SlimVirgin(talk)19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to look for a knowledgeable academic to review your edits about Luther, both on Martin Luther and elsewhere. Whether I'll find one willing to do it, I don't know, but I'm going to start looking. SlimVirgin(talk)20:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams202000:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.
There has been a big debate over this policy. I think you have valuable experience that makes you an important interlocutor on this matter. I suggest you forst go here for a very concise account, and then depending on how much time you have read over the WP:NOR policy and the edit conflicts that led to its being protected, or the last talk to be archived ... or just go straight to the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this in passing -- life in the real world has gotten very busy, mostly in creating online classes, but also in personal life. That, and I'm experimenting with Facebook. 8-) I don't miss the abuse one bit. I may come back to this again someday, but for now...
In reviewing the article, I came across some issues that may need to be addressed; I have left a detailed summary on the article's talk page. As a result I have put Pedro del Valle's GA status on hold. This will remain in place for a week or so before a final decision is taken as to the article's status.
I have left this message because, from the article history, you have been a significant contributor. If you no longer edit this article please accept my apologies and feel free to ignore this message ;)
You welcomed me to Wikipedia over a year and a half ago. I recently passed 25,000 edits and wanted to let you know that I still appreciate your early kindness in welcoming me to Wikipedia. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Brights movement seems to be a British thing. I once said, "I seem to be pretty bright (intelligent) but not too Bright (naturalistic thinking)." In other words, I don;t seem to have much cnfidence in my sense of common Sense.
Can you tell that my typing skills are rusty? I wish I could hire someone to take dictation,
I would like you to send word to my sister, Dawn Marie Vanderhyde, nvywfe72@ yahoo.com, NAVy WiFE, DMV, &c. She is my durable power of attorney for medical affairs. We've talked enough that she knows I consuder you to be another sister, or at least a tolkienish Elf-friend. Dawn knows who SOPHIA is, anyway. I'm going down the membershio roll at User:Archola/The_Centrist_Fellowship. Dawny Dawny Doo, where are you?
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
Hi, noticed you have a anti-vandalism barnstar. Would you mind talking to your fellow pastor Bob Waters? You welcomed him to Wikipedia a while back, and he has vandalised my user page twice now:
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues".
During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help?
The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new.
This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings.
Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points.
The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't.
So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions:
Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article?
Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph?
Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting.
Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead?
If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section.
Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons.
Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion!
From the Editors
Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk·contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk·contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cilice.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-06T22:54:00.000Z-Image:1915_Dance_by_Rodchenko.jpg){kind=link}