Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

WT:GAN

This page, a part of the good article talk page collection, is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived, feel free to go retrieve it.
Current archive location: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 12.

Archives

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

Homosexual transsexual

Just wondering ... homosexual transsexual is a interesting but seemingly tense subject area ... it seems to be on its fourth GA nom in a row in less than three months or so. I wonder if it makes sense to sideline it for a few months in hopes it stabilizes? -- Banjeboi 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can stop nominations in that way. Hopefully, it has been improved since its last failure. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping a nom midway sets a dangerous precedent. Don't do that. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for clarification not trying to set a precedent or stop anything.

March 12, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

April 13, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

May 27, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

And the same nom has again relisted. Is this the first time this has ever happenned or is there any ideas on what may be the most help to the article itself? To me it just seems this has been one very long nom process but that's because it's been on my article alert radar for several months which is quite rare. -- Banjeboi 07:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into this a bit more closely. (I know the article from the GAR which delisted it.) The May 27 nomination was a procedural close because the nominator started the review page with an opening statement about the article; while this is usually fairly harmless, I think the procedural close was a good call in this case, because this is an article where the review definitely needs to be strongly reviewer-led. The March 12 nomination was failed without a review on the grounds of instability and clean-up tags. So the article has only really had one complete review since it was delisted. That generated useful input, but ended up, in my opinion, as something of a trainwreck (this is *not* a criticism of the reviewer). My suggestion to avoid this happening again would be for the next reviewer to ask those who have recused themselves from editing the article (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen/First_mediation) to recuse also from commenting on the review page. Geometry guy 14:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful overview on this. For everyone's sake then ... would you be willing to add a comment on the top of that review itself that highlights these points? That may help be proactive in keeping the review for what it's intended. Also would it make sense to recruit some folks who may have the time and patience to work the some of the issues? -- Banjeboi 20:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first point, yes I would, as long as the reviewer agreed. Regarding the second, it would surely help to have further input, but I'm not sure how to attract interested editors beyond those already involved. A notification to Malkinann might be worthwhile when the review starts. Geometry guy 20:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Outendenting)I would quickly like to clarify why I have renominated the article so many times since it was delisted (after having been listed for a long while). Geometry guy touched on the reason, I have gotten very little good feedback on the article itself there. So far the reviews have ammounted to one person in particular, sometimes accompanied by one or two others writing about how the subject matter of the article offends them and that GA staus would be WP "legitimating" the subject matter. I don't see how it could? GA status is not shown on the articles page which is all joe user ever reads (and WP just does not have the power to "legitimate" anything IMO). If I can get a review which is about the actual writing of the article itself, things I can change and still be true to the subject I will be satisfied.

I kid you not the latest comment on the talk page is from one who claimed that the article Homosexual transsexual is not neutral because it uses the term "homosexual transsexual". What am I supposed to do? That is representative of the type of things I have heard so far.--Hfarmer (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious reservations about this article. At the least I believe it should be quick-failed. In my immediate observations, I see that there are grammar issues and coherence problems, making the article nearly unintelligible. I have more to say about this article's sourcing and structuring, but the issue at hand is its GA nomination. --Moni3 (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

retiring again, could someone please help?

Sorry to lay this off on you again... I'm trying to retire again. Would someone be so kind as to pick up the reviews of Talk:Swedish heraldry/GA2 and Talk:1st Marine Division (United States)/GA1? I sincerely apologize for the trouble I've caused you. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the marines. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 305 nominations waiting to be reviewed.

I don't think the problem is an influx of new articles either. I think we're losing reviewers and not being able to replace them. Needless to say, this is a problem, and we need to find where we can get more GA reviewers. With what I do on this site I can't be dedicating weekends to GA work like I did this past one very often.. Wizardman 14:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also comment that some nominators, thankfully not many, have been so uncivil in responding to good faith review cooments that I wouldn't want to review other articles put forward by them. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people take constructive criticism too personally, so it is a thankless job (sometimes) reviewing GAs or even FAs. I have spent a good portion of my last few weekends here, but that is only because I have neglected my other hobbies. The problem here I think is lack of trade, too many nominators want to nominate 5 or 10 articles, but are not revewing any. If you nominate 1 article you should review 3 articles, thats my opinion. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 18:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews should preferably (or only) be carried out by those who are competent to do so. Nominating one article does not necessarily make an editor competent to review three articles, or even one. AND, as I have reviewed about 110 WP:GANs and submited none, I assume that it entitles me to submit 330 articles of my choosing for WP:GAN. Ludicrous I agree.Pyrotec (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if the equation is to be 1 nom for every 3 reviewed, wouldn't that mean you're entitled to submit 36 articles, give or take a few (excuse my inexact math)? ;) Perhaps we should hold another drive in order to alleviate backlog. María (habla conmigo) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The shock of reading the previous comment was too much for my brain. You are correct, I now only need to submit 36 WP:GANs - must start soon.Pyrotec (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the backlog is in "trivia"/"pop culture" categories. The categories that I care about seem to be doing pretty well in terms of backlog. Looie496 (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Music, movies, and sports always have tons of noms, understandably. The other two categories that I always notice are backlogged are War & Military, and roads.

As for lack of trade...I agree with ErgoSum that it would be nice for nominators to also review some articles. I don't think it would be nice to make it a rule, but we could at least urge people to review, like PR does; I think it's just good etiquette to try and help out with the backlog if you know you're also contributing to it. I personally try to have done at least 1 review for each nom I've made (although my number might be off a bit right now). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And in the meantime, we've hit 310.3 1/2 years of Mitch 32 19:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be a good idea to propose a rule to limit submissions to one per editor at any time? That would certainly cut down a lot of the backlog. Majorly talk 19:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that's a good idea, given the variability of GA review styles. Many GA reviews are very in-depth (I've had some that felt like one-man FACs), but others are just running down a checklist and seem to take less than an hour (luckily, I've never had a review like that, but I've seen them happen to plenty of other articles). If all reviews were super in-depth it would make sense to limit submissions, but if half of reviews are just wham, bam, thank you ma'am, then I don't know if it's necessary. (Of course, on the other hand, you could argue that if we limited submissions then people would have more time to do nice, in-depth reviews, which is probably true.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is totally fair to limit submissions to one per editor, either. Arsenikk, for instance but there are others, tends to submit ten or so articles at a time to WP:GAN, but he has reviewed more than 110 WP:GANs. There are other editors that produce multiple good GAN articles and also carry out good reviews. The backlog is pronounced in certain categories and not in others. If editors choose to submit nominations for categories that have a long backlog, then they will have to learn to be patient. In my experience, some GANs can be done in a few hours whereas others take a few days. It very much depends on the length and the quality of the article; and these are not necessarily directly related.Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if doing a review was easier. I've been thinking of doing a review, but I don't feel like marking it under review, creating the subpage, marking it on hold, removing it from GAN, then adding it to GA. It would be cool if I could just create the subpage, and bot would do the rest. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the subpages have made it a lot easier, especially for record keeping. I don't usually bother changing the template on GAN to on hold (kinda sad, considering I'm the person who pioneered it!) because I just worry about notifying the nominator about changes in status. I don't think the magic bot bullet will fix anything; at FAC it still takes quite a few intermediate steps for the delegates to archive/promote. As soon as Sweeps are complete I'll be back to regular reviewing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were 1,088 to do at the end of May 2009; so we won't be seeing you soon.Pyrotec (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David Fuchs, and I think setting up a bot is more trouble than it's worth. To be honest, the reviewing process is not too complicated once you've done it once, and I think it's all pretty intuitive (you just have to remember starting the review subpage, and marking WP:GAN so people know you're reviewing; everything else pretty much follows from that, and GAN has helpful instructions for what to do in the event that you pass or fail an article). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This topic crops up from time to time. In response, it is important to ask "what problem do we need to solve?" The success of GA is not a problem. Ongoing trends suggest that the number of articles at GAN will continue to increase in future. However, if the page becomes too long, we can subdivide it by topic. One thing that does matter is nominator wait times. For as long as I can recall, nominators have often had to wait a month or so. Has the situation got worse across the board? Another thing that matters is reviewer numbers: for some time we have seen reviewer growth in response to demand. Is there any reliable evidence that reviewer numbers are falling?

I would like to offer more up to date statistics, but WP:GAN/R hasn't been updated for many months. Graphs of nominations up to then can be found at File:GANbacklog-compare.png and File:GANbacklog-compare-all.png. A useful additional resource is User:VeblenBot/C/Good_article_nominees_awaiting_review. Geometry guy 23:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it will go down. The sweeps pulled away some GAN reviewers. Once the sweeps are done, which should be soon, they'll be back at GAN in no time. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting up a bot is more trouble than its worth? I think too many tedious edits are required of editors around here. We spend so much time updating lists, counts, status pages, categories, etc that could be better spent doing actual work. I think you should be required to edit the GA subpage and article talk page only, the rest should be done by bots. I find updating the GA list and the GA nominations page (reviewing, on hold), to be tedious and unnecessary. If the Article talk page template can change when I create the GA subpage, why can't the GAN page update (to reflect that someone is reviewing the article/is on hold/etc) whenever I create the GA subpage? When the article is passed/failed then I can simply delete the GAN listing and thats the only edit I need to make.

The issue of GA list automation was briefly discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Archive_12#.2Frecent_bot:_an_update recently, as the WP:Good articles/recent page is now updated by a bot. Also, in response to Pyrotec, there is no "qualification" for someone to review GAs, any editor may participate. If you nominate 1, you should review 3 articles, period. If you have reviewed 110 articles, then I think you are entitled to nominate your fair share of articles for review and take a break from reviewing... but nobody would seriously nominate 36 or 336 articles at once so I don't know what that was all about. Ludicrous, I agree. Also I don't see why there shouldn't be nomination limits, as there are already limits for PR. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 14:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ErgoSum88's comment that the "paperwork" should be entirely automated.

OTOH having seen a few inadequate reviews I think reviews should be done by editors who have been on the other side of 2-3 GA reviews that ended as passes. --Philcha (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the comment that there are over 1,000 artciles awaiting GA Sweeps reviews, I had a quick look, and found:

Poor explanation of the procedure for flagging up a "pass", e.g. what template to use.
On top of that there's even more paperwork than in an ordinary nom, because a sweeps candidate does not have a single nominator and the instructions require reassessors go chasing around for someone to notify.
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/Project_quality_task_force/Sweeps_worklist is not sorted by date. Presumably the oldest GAs are the ones most in need of reassessment. Ideally the list should be sortable both by date and by subject area. Sounds like a job for a bot, or at least a JavaScript. If we find that a few topic areas are not getting reassessed, we announce that no new noms will be reviewed until the sweeps list for that category has been brought back into line :-)
I looked at about 5, and they seemed in better shape than the average new nomination. Perhaps Sweeps should switch to a basis where 1 old GA is reassessed for every 1 new GA added. That would increase the number of reviwers available for new noms. --Philcha (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pass is usually ok with a simple message. Usually it's only the hold/delist that gives us trouble because people demand a longer explanation. We use a cut-off date system, that is all articles listed before August 26, 2007 (date at which sweeps begun) will be swept. Seeing that it's close to 2 years since it initiated, even if the list contains articles that are promoted on the day of the cut-off, we're not wasting resources on sweeping newly promoted GA. The sweeps have taken us longer than expected due to little activity (until User:Nehrams2020 devised a better method in May which creates the spike). Our running gag is the sweeps will finish by 2012, let's hope it won't turn into a reality. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, lets hope sweeps does finish by 2012 - I wouldn't like to see it go on any longer than that! :-) Geometry guy 21:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's obviously a very significant resource sink so far as GA reviewing is concerned, and the sooner it's done the better. I haven't looked at the numbers in any detail, but it seems to me to be another classic demonstration of the Pareto principle, with the overwhelming majority of the reviews carried out by a rather small percentage of the participants. Those productive reviewers are obviously going to be sorely missed at GAN/GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content noticeboard

A noticeboard is proposed and live now that will potentially be a forum for content editors to discuss article writing, sources, the various promotion procedures. You can find it here: Content noticeboard. --Moni3 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and this thread entitled 'Wikipedia:Content noticeboard#FA/GA Boycott' may be of interest. –xeno^talk 21:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly interesting. Wrad's views are, well Wrad's views, and WP:WBFAN is clearly a very poor idea. What else is there to say? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much. I just added a reminder that short articles are welcome at GA. Geometry guy 21:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam at GA

Just a note that Zithan (talk · contribs), sockpuppet of crat/admin/OS Nichalp (talk · contribs) (now impeached by arbcom) nominated four articles that he wrote for business clients for GAN in return for money, and two passed. His most recent article is currently up at AFD as a whitewash/spam YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first review

I reviewed MissingNo. over here. This is my first review, so could someone please look at it and see if there's any changes to be made? I'm logging off for the next 18 hours, so feel free to make any changes. Thanks, Aditya ^α _ß 14:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent first review, nice work! :) TheLeft orium 14:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to hear! Thanks. Aditya ^α _ß 17:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a nom

I'd like to note that I just removed a nomination of Fibromyalgia. I removed it because first, the editor (Mikebar (talk · contribs)) who nominated it has not contributed to the article; second, there was no discussion of the nomination; third, this article has been quite unstable for a long time. (It is a delisted former GA.) I won't oppose a nomination if it is discussed on the talk page and editors who have contributed to the article agree to it. I am well aware that anybody is permitted to nominate any article, but that policy only makes sense if it is possible to boldly remove nominations that are clearly inappropriate, as this one is at this time. Looie496 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?

Pierre Trudeau, an article I reviewed, has been on hold since May 26. I accidentally didn't transclude the page immediately - this was done on June 4. The nominator has not contributed in any way since the nom, but another editor addressed a few of my concerns on June 8. Can someone take a look to see if it should be passed now? If not, should I just fail it? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same thing that led to my removal of a nom in the item above: JulieSpaulding (talk · contribs) nominated an article that she had never contributed to, with no discussion on the talk page. All that does is waste people's time. It would have been better not to have started the review in the first place, but now that you have, the best thing to do is to put a note on the talk page explaining the situation, and if nobody steps up to rescue the article, fail it. Looie496 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the nominator of Pierre Trudeau for GA hasn't been editing for quite a while, I think she's busy in life, maybe? Give it a few more days. It doesn't hurt to let it sit for a bit longer. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven reviews in an hour

I just noticed that user:I Seek To Help & Repair! has committed a lot of reviews lately (I count seven reviews in one hour). While I haven't examined the reviews in detail, I don't see how anyone can do quality reviews at such a pace. While not technically against any rules, I think this is slightly problematic, so I left a note at their talk page. Thoughts? decltype (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the review pages (for example: Talk:Stan Marsh/GA1, Talk:George (Blackadder character)/GA1, Talk:Fireproof (film)/GA1), they don't seem to be very in-depth. Just looking at Fireproof (film) alone, I see a few issues in that article than described in the review. Since you've left the user a note, I'll wait to see how this progresses. — Σ xplicit 06:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user replied here, I have pointed them to this discussion. decltype (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user marked some as passes in the last few hours or so; though did not update the GAN templates as having passed; perhaps having been nudged on their talkpage. A quick glance shows at least one linked above using forums as sources. –Whitehorse1 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Marsh was one of the articles reviewed, which I nominated. I left a question requesting clarification of the review while also noting that "length" is not part of WP:WIAGA. When there wasn't a response for five days, I looked at some of the other reviews mentioned by the OP and noticed some similar situations (much that didn't adhere to WP:RGA).

I then left this message on the reviewer's talk page. For the record, I wasn't trying to persuade or "nudge" the reviewer into passing or failing an article, I was simply reminding the reviewer that others were seeking clarification which I felt was only fair to be provided within the seven days of the "on hold" period. As the above post mentions, very soon after this the reviewer suddenly stated that some of the articles reviewed were suddenly "GA ready", though did not take any action to indicate nor explicitly state that they had been passed. On two other articles, editors who were not the reviewers went ahead and promoted them and changed the article status based on their interpretation of these posts.

I'm not making this post as an attempt to rush anyone into thinking about how this needs to be handled (if it becomes "problematic", as the OP said suggested), but in all honesty, I wouldn't want an article on which I worked hard and nominated to be suddenly passed or failed at a sudden moment's notice after a vague review sat idle for so long and no significant changes were made to said article. I'm saying this in the hopes of creating some feedback. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brat Pack (film)

There appears to be trouble brewing regarding this article. I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk · contribs) reviewed the article and quickly failed it because it's not comprehensive enough and Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk · contribs) has undone his edit. More eyes are probably needed. Nev1 (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The review does appear to have been somewhat cursory and was not actually done on a review page. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the removal of the failed GA banner and left a note on User:Maher-shalal-hashbaz's talk page suggesting that the review is taken to WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:GAN. Surely you meant to suggest taking it to WP:GAR? María (habla conmigo) 15:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this to WP:GAR. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why the peer review bot isn't reviewing GAN?

It seems to me that it would be pretty useful to have around? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way would it be useful? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it gives feedback for one thing. This can be used by whoever nominated the GAN to improve the article before a GA review gets to it. At any rate, it won't hurt to have it.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then any nominator who wishes to do so can submit their article for peer review. Don't see the point of confusing peer review and GA; remember that there's no rule against an article being simultaneously at peer review and GAN. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why jump through 2 hoops? I like the idea. At least it will get some issues out of the way before a human reviewer gets to the article. I find it interesting that we can go through peer review and GAN at the same time. Aren't they both addressing similar issues? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because GAN is specifically addressing the GA criteria. It has nothing to do with whatever any peer review bot may or may not do. Anyone who wants a peer review should request a peer review, not a GA review. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could a bot be coded/created to search for GA problems within GAN candidates then? Items important to GAN such as bad/dead links within reference sections, etcetera. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bot could be built to carry out some simple GA checks, but I'd be very surprised if every GA reviewer doesn't already check for dead links. That's that's not really a fundamentally important check anyway, as it depends on what information the link is meant to be supporting, if any. I'm lukewarm about the idea of a GA-specific bot; don't really see the point, but I wouldn't object to one. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of having the peer review bot giving its opinion for every GA review. In effect, it would act as a "second reviewer" who would be able to point out any obvious script-observable problems (saving the human reviewer some effort), and in many cases ultimately improve the article quality. If I want a PR, I'll go to peer review, but a bot analysis alone would also be beneficial (and you can ignore it if you feel otherwise). Sasata (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For information, the so called "peer review bot" is actually a combination of two things: the first is a script which anyone sufficiently savy can run to generate a bunch of suggestions for article improvements; the second is a bot which automatically runs this script on new peer reviews. Anyone who proposes introducing a similar scheme for GA should: (a) be able to understand the script and adapt it to create a GA version which focuses on GA issues; (b) propose a method by which the operator of the peer review bot can automatically run the script on good article nominations; (c) ensure that this does not interfere in any way with the normal nomination and review procedures. Geometry guy 22:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stability of section headings

Can I ask reviewers to be alert for edits like this which change section headings without discussion. The section headings here are used at WP:GA and by the GA templates, so any changes need consensus. Geometry guy 00:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max Payne (film)

A newer editor who didn't know anybetter (AGFing) "passed" Max Payne' as a Good Article with a fake review and basically just making stuff up at Talk:Max Payne (film)/GA1. Its pretty clear it was a fake review, so its been reverted and the article restored to GAN status. He also has been starting individual GARs on non-GA articles and the like. Bene cleaning up behind him and left him a note. Meanwhile, anyone up for giving this film a proper review since it is the only one really effected by his efforts (the rest were just non-reviews so just cleared and good to go)? ~cross posted to films project~ -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nEvermind...admin wouldn't delete the fake review so it has now been delisted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Villa

I've been working hard on this for a few months. Anyone think it deserves to be considered a "Good article"?

Paper Back Writer 23 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only means of getting a definitive answer is to submit it for WP:GAN. I don't particularly like your one and two sentence paragraphs, so I would put it On Hold for the prose to be improved but I don't do GA reviews on Sports topics. So I would not review it anyway; but it could pass.Pyrotec (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New backlog elimination drive?

How's about a new GAN backlog elimination drive?

Backlog continues to grow, and this could help right about now, IMO. – (iMatthew • talk) at 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for it. I'll join in on the reviewing as well.--WillC 13:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else...? – (iMatthew • talk) at 18:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review at least as many as I submit... which could be a dozen in the next few weeks. But increasing turnover is good too. Sasata (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When will this elimination drive take place? — Σ xplicit 19:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will this elimination drive take place? We need to answer that first. – (iMatthew • talk) at 19:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the problems with my desktop are fixed by then, I'd gladly participate. — Σ xplicit 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that before you start a new drive, you let the old review drive finish (hopefully by september or so) and let those reviewers recharge and/or review new nominations. Back to back drives only hurt reviewing. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←I'm assuming you mean the 2009 Spring drive, which hasn't been touched since the beginning of April. I think it's safe to say that one is done. — Σ xplicit 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that was an intended reference to the GA Sweeps. –Whitehorse1 20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's right, my mistake. I suppose that makes sense, as several GAN reviewers are participating in that drive. — Σ xplicit 20:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←It has, been just 2–3 months since the previous drive. A short time. Five or six months elapsed after the one that came before that, and the one before was a year earlier. As DWF points out, excessive drives can have negative impact (e.g. participants taking on more than usual to attain a level of award, leading to temporary burnout or their taking a step back. Granted, something down to them, but which can lead to their reviewing less, all in all). Of course, reducing the backlog is always good. –Whitehorse1 20:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be interesting to know if previous drive participants, who were not previously GA regulars (i.e., new reviewers), stuck around and continued to review articles after the drive ended. –Whitehorse1 20:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date unlinking bot RFC open

There is a community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates. We could use more comments from good Wikignomes (any everyone else). Please see Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and comment here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination question

I followed the three-step nomination procedure in How to nominate an article and got stuck at: "Copy this for the edit summary: Nominating [[ArticleName]]" Where should I copy this to? bamse (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the "edit summary" field located under the main edit-box when you edit the page. For more information, see Help:Edit summary. TheLeft orium 19:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Of course; I must have been blind. I hope the nomination is not invalid now. Will remember for the next nomination. bamse (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be fine. :-) It doesn't directly affect your article nomination, but instead, it's just an easy way to keep track of who/when an article was nominated by judging the page history. As far as I know, no bots rely upon that, it's just a recommendation so entries can remain orderly. Jamie^☆S93 19:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Religion, mysticism and mythology, although arguably it could go under World history. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article nominated for GAN despite consensus being against it

It seems that the article Lady Gaga has been nominated for a second time by ~~Cloverfield Monsta (talk · contribs)~~Truth of the World: Welcome to the Show (talk · contribs), despite consensus on its talk page saying it's not ready. As an uninvolved editor, I left a comment regarding this issue, but the nominator refuses to withdraw because he has the right to nominate the article. How should this be handled? — Σ xplicit 17:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a consensus trying to force someone not to nominate an article for GAN before. Sounds like a dangerous precedent. If you don't think it's ready for GA, start reviewing it with specific information of what still needs to be fixed for it to be GA ready. Of the comments I saw on there, I didn't see much of that happening. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not ready, in my view at least, but anyone's entitled to make a GA nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't ready, a full review should reflect that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is not Cloverfield Monsta, officially I have changed it to User|Truth of the World: Welcome to the Show. I am more then entitled as a user to nomniate an article. --R.I.P. Michael :( 03:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to your edit, you are Cloverfield Monsta. That aside, although agree you have the right to nominate it, the article will, at best, be placed on hold, as the article clearly doesn't meet the criteria. — Σ xplicit 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every registered editor is welcome to nominate GA articles, whether they're active editors of the said article or not. Stopping someone from nominating is a sign of ownership. End of story. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If it isn't ready, a full review should reflect that." I second that! ...the GA review process does not consist of a debate among several other editors on the article's main talk page. WP:CON shouldn't be used to justify a majority's opinion regarding non-editorial issues. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aw heck. I'll review it! ::puts hands in air and makes Superman "whoosh" noises:: Nominated mere hours ago and already a review headed its way. Hooray for publicity! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whooo. I am gonna go a crazy, gonna eat my babies placenta like Tom Cruise. Just jokes. I have actually changed my name but have no idea why it has not change, FYI. 07:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)