Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles‎ | Project quality task force

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ruslik0 (talk | contribs) at 07:31, 1 October 2007 (→‎Running total: keeping Gun violence in the United States). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Running total

  1. OhanaUnited (talk · contribs · count) (12) - Archimedes (pass), David Hilbert (GAR, then delisted), Srinivasa Ramanujan (pass), Alan Turing (pass), Commutativity (pass), Derivative (GAR, keep), E (mathematical constant) (pass), Euclidean geometry (bold delisted restored/exempt*), Exponentiation (exempt*), Hilbert space (exempt*), Homotopy groups of spheres (exempt*), Mathematics (pass), French cuisine (pass), Chocolate (delisted), Cubeb (on hold until 9/28)
  2. Dinosaur puppy (talk · contribs · count) aka T Rex (27) - American popular music (pass), Music of Albania (GAR), Music of Antigua and Barbuda (delisted), Music of Barbados (pass), Music of Dominica (pass), Music of Hawaii (GAR), Music of Hungary (GAR), Music of Italy (pass), Music of Saint Lucia (pass), Agung (pass), Gandingan (pass), A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant (pass), Glastonbury Festival (pass), C++ (GAR), Goleta, California (delisted), Dynasty Warriors 4 (delisted), Old English language (delisted), Weyto language (delisted), TIE fighter (pass), Fight Club (pass), 1080° Snowboarding (pass), Call of Duty 2 (pass), GoldenEye 007 (on hold), Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast (pass), Tom Felton (pass), Peter of Bruys (pass), Hero of the Russian Federation (pass)
  3. Derek.cashman (talk · contribs · count) (16) - Alexander Shulgin (pass), Percy Lavon Julian (pass), Atomic theory (pass), Water (delisted), Krypton (pass), Neon (pass), Ethanol (boldly delisted), Aluminium chloride (pass), Argon (pass), Caesium fluoride (pass), Calcium chloride (pass), Chlorine (pass), Cocaine (boldly delist), Copper (boldly delisted), Copper(I) chloride (pass), CS gas (pass).
  4. Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs · count) (18) - Dru Hill (GAR, delisted), The Reputation (GAR, Keep), A Series of Unfortunate Events (GAR), Imbrex and tegula (GAR, Keep), Taj Mahal (GAR, Keep), St. La Salle Hall (GAR, Keep), Onion Dome (GAR, Keep), St Thomas the Martyr's Church, Oxford (GAR), National Ignition Facility (GAR), Bringin' on the Heartbreak (GAR), David Hammond (GAR), Garbage (band) (GAR, Delisted), Where Did Our Love Go (GAR, then delisted), KLF Communications (GAR, delisted), Presidio of Santa Barbara (keep), Film (bold delisted), Midnight Movie (bold delisted), Silent film (GAR, delisted), Facing the Giants (GAR)
  5. Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs · count) (21) - 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing (pass), 2006 Lebanon War (pass), Atlantique Incident (on hold; pass), Wars of Castro (bold delisted), Battle of Gythium (pass), Battle of Sitka (bold delisted), Napoleonic Wars (bold delisted), Toyota War (pass), Smolensk War (pass), Norman conquest of England, (bold delisted), Byzantine-Arab Wars (on hold; pass), Operation Ring (on hold; pass), Spafford Farm massacre (pass), Dutch Revolt (on hold; delisted)), Battle of Quebec (1690) (pass), Battle of Uhud (on hold; pass), Ottoman-Egyptian Invasion of Mani (pass), Attacks at Fort Blue Mounds (pass), Battle of Kelbajar (on hold; pass), Battle of Wisconsin Heights (pass), Battle of Baia (pass)
  6. Geometry guy (talk · contribs · count) (Additional math passes) - Homotopy groups of spheres (pass), Pythagorean theorem (pass), Sylvester's sequence (pass), Znam's problem (pass).
  7. LaraLove (talk · contribs · count) (4) Wood (hold delist), Marian Breland Bailey (pass}, Idit Harel Caperton (bold delist), Borderline Personality Disorder (pass)
    (Participation withdrawn) Johnfos (talk · contribs · count) (2) Consolation of Philosophy (pass), Edmund Burke (on hold till 23/9).
  8. Epbr123 (talk · contribs · count) (73) Chinyingi (bold delist), Timbuktu (bold delist after hold), Alanya (on hold until 23/9, extended to 30/9), Ashdod (on hold until 23/9), Beit She'an (bold delist after hold), Ir Ovot (on hold until 23/9), Lam Tin (pass after hold), Macau (pass), Mamilla (pass), Negros Oriental (bold delist after hold), Quneitra (pass), Shanghai ghetto (bold delist), Tel Aviv (pass), Tibet (bold delist), Adelaide (bold delist), Cullacabardee, Western Australia (pass), Diego Garcia (bold delist after hold), Melbourne (on hold until 23/9), Palm Island, Queensland (pass), Riverina (pass), St Kilda, South Australia (pass), Summer Hill, New South Wales (bold delist), Sydney (bold delist), Wagga Wagga, New South Wales (pass after hold), Alby, Öland (bold delist), Altrincham (pass), Askam and Ireleth (pass after hold), Belfast (hold and pass), Berlin (bold delist after hold), Birmingham (pass), Bjørnøya (bold delist), Blyth, Northumberland (pass), Bratislava (pass), Bristol (on hold until 24/9), Chew Magna (pass after hold), Chew Stoke (pass), Donetsk (on hold until 25/9), Dublin (bold delist), East End of London (pass after hold), Eastbourne (pass), Evanton (pass), Hale Barns (on hold until 25/9), Hampshire (bold delist after hold), Heilbronn (bold delist), Limerick (bold delist), London (pass), New England Quarter (on hold until 26/9), Norfolk (on hold until 26/9), Northern Ireland (bold delist), Paris (bold delist), Penmon, Anglesey (pass), Póvoa de Varzim (pass), Runcorn (pass), St Buryan (on hold until 26/9), Santorini (bold delist), Scotland (on hold until 26/9), Stockholm (bold delist), Wallachia (on hold until 27/9), Widnes (pass), Zagreb (on hold until 27/9), Žirmūnai (pass), Amarillo, Texas (pass), Atlanta, Georgia (on hold until 28/9), Atlantic City, New Jersey (bold delist), Calgary (on hold until 28/9), Chambersburg, Pennsylvania (pass), Chicago (on hold until 29/9), Columbus, Ohio (on hold until 30/9), Coral Springs, Florida (pass), Counties in Delaware (pass), Dallas, Texas (on hold until 30/9), Denver, Colorado (on hold until 2/10), Edmonton (on hold until 4/10),
  9. AshLin (talk · contribs · count) (zero)
  10. Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · count) (33) Australian_constitutional_law (bold delist), Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees (keep), Directive Principles in India (keep), Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (on hold until 25/9, delist), Fundamental Rights in India (keep), Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (keep), Jacobson v. United States (keep), Marbury v. Madison (on hold until 2/10), National Comics Publications v. Fawcett Publications (bold delist), New Jersey State Constitution (GAR), NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. (keep), R v Thomas (keep), Recognition of gay unions in Ireland (keep), Tax protester constitutional arguments (on hold until 28/9, keep), United States Code Congressional and Administrative News (keep), Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. (keep), Youth Offending Team (bold delist), USA PATRIOT Act, Title III (on hold until 2/10), USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B (keep), Welsh law (on hold until 2/10), Pro Milone (on hold until 2/10), Mohamed Atta (bold delist), Boricua Popular Army (keep), Cerro Maravilla Incident (keep), Chris and Cru Kahui murders (on hold until 4/10), Matthew Cox (keep), Crime (bold delist), Crime in Mexico (on hold until 4/10), Lana Stempien (keep), Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (keep), Miguel Etchecolatz (keep), Albert Fish (keep), Gun violence in the United States (keep).


* Mathematics and physics, and chemistry articles are exempt from sweeps at this time. An expert in the field will review them when able. Retain current count of reviews for credit. LaraLove♥ 03:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

First off why are we keeping a running total? Just to keep track I suppose? Also, are we listing all articles we've reviewed, or all articles that were delisted or went to GA/R? It seems uneccessary to mention every little article you look over, only the ones that required additional attention. Drewcifer 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so you don't review ones that have already been reviewed. T Rex | talk 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. I was just going in alphabetical order, but I guess that makes sense. Drewcifer 00:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's for a combination of reasons. Not so much to avoid double reviews, considering everyone should be using the sweep list and review template to alert everyone to what section they are working on, but to allow for us to note which articles in a given category have been reviewed considering there are articles added everyday. Second, in case there is a need to quality check (which I really hope not). Third, for award giving reasons. There will be awards given out for this, which ones and for what have yet to be revealed, but a running total will contribute to the determination of who gets what. LARA♥LOVE 03:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilized version

Because everyday more GA is added, we're establishing an edit version that the sweeps is based on. Then we can deal with the newly listed GA afterwards. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking. LARA♥LOVE 06:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising?

We seriously need more than 4 people doing sweeps. That's 702 reviews per person, if it's only 4. T Rex | talk 20:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There will be more participation soon. A few reviewers have school stuff going on right now, but will be joining us in a couple weeks or so. I'll be starting reviews here soon. I'm a little burned out after the backlog quality reviews, which still aren't done. The thing is, we don't want just anyone doing sweeps, at least not these initial ones. It defeats the purpose if there are shotty sweep reviews. Completely pointless. So only experienced reviewers need to participate in this the first time around. If there are quality reviewers that you trust, invite them, but please no mass advertising. Lara♥Love 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change in procedure

GA/R has, expectedly, blown up. There really isn't a lot of participation and the page is getting a little overwhelming. Additionally, it's not really being utilized correctly. Anyway, I think a better option would be as follows:

  • If an article clearly fails to meet the criteria (those especially that were promoted back in early to mid-2006 or so, just delist them with a summary of why. List what issues to be corrected and be sure there's a link to the criteria and GA/R.
  • For those that have a few minor issues (more than can quickly and easily be corrected by you, put them on hold. Remember to check back on these in a timely manner.
  • For those that you would normally send to GA/R, list the issues the article has and tell them that the article will be delisted if corrections are not made within seven days. List those here as Questionable. You can even put (?-date) beside it above. I will check the progress on these. So that's the difference between on hold and this. LaraLove♥ 19:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Though I think the backlog at GA/R could be a little bit relieved if every regular went back through the list. Alot of them have been fixed (The Reputation for example) and alot of them haven't received attention by all of the regulars in the first place. We have enough people who frequent GA/R to take care of every last one of the reviews, it's just that not every review gets complete participation. Maybe a notice on the Talk page might do some good. I'll give that a try. Drewcifer 20:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think our sweeps isn't fast enough, and I wasn't helping sweeps this week because I'm helping out with university 1st year students' orientation (which is 8am to 10pm, 10pm is NOT a typo). Is it time now to get more help? OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More help is on the way. This has been a bad week for me to. I've got a lot going on with school starting and all, but I'll be starting my reviews soon. I agree it's not fast enough. We're going to try to get a bot that will list those promoted more than 6 months ago. Start there. I'll keep everyone updated. LaraLove♥ 03:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics GAs

Mathematics GA reviews are currently suspended until furthur notice. Please avoid conducting reviews to the articles listed under that section until matters are cleared up. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physics and chemistry articles as well... any other highly technical scientific articles that I may have overlooked as well. Experts in these fields will review the articles when able. Until then, they are exempt from sweeps. Regards, LaraLove♥ 04:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to a request by Lara, I have passed some of the mathematics articles that I looked at previously. I checked them briefly again before doing this. However, I did not pass the following articles: Exponentiation, Euclidean geometry, Hilbert space, Order theory, Ordinal number. I recommend sequential GA/R for these five articles, with notification to WT:WPM in each case to increase the chance of expert input and editor improvements. Geometry guy 20:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

Awards and running totals, I think this is a good concept but a bad idea. The thought of rewarding editors for their effort is commendable and hopefully will encourage good reviews. From the outside looking in saying people will get rewards is a slap in the face to editors who did all the work in the first place, to log on and find an article you've worked hard was delisted without prior discussion then come here and find that the person delisting is getting rewarded is offensive. Gnangarra 06:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, we're not "delist-happy" people. We don't delist just because we want to, we got good reasons to delist them. Second, the purpose of the sweeps is not to delist articles. We're not running a delist drive. We're running a quality check drive to ensure all articles meeting the GA standard. Let me explain (as I did this plenty of times so getting better at explaining...), there wasn't a criteria for GA until mid 2006. Some articles are promoted simply because an editor feels that it looks like a good article (happens before the criteria was implemented). Some are promoted by inexperience reviewers and miss out key areas in their reviews. A few articles were deteriorated slowly after they are promoted. Common problems found from these articles include lack of references, limited amount of references, no fair-use rationale on some images or original research. The sweeps is long overdue, and we took the initative to check every single GA to ensure their qualtiy remain satisifactory. As you can see, the initial phrase only allows experienced reviews because we don't want any bad articles slipping through our fingers nor delisting articles that met the standard. If there's any particular review that makes you feel concerned, please let us know. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Then explain the message on USA PATRIOT Act, Title III then. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got no problem with the intent of the review, I can accept the lack of discussion in the process given the volume. What I have issue with is that seeing an Award is on offer for participation in this effort and that the awards are undefined with special ones(But you'll still get a star (maybe something better)) implies something underhanded in the process. Gnangarra 06:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there're over 2,800 GA and only 10 reviewers, that brings to an average 280 reviews per reviewer. The main problem is that we don't have a lot of trusted and experienced review members (and also active Wikipedians). If we don't have incentive I don't think the sweep will get going. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly understand Gnangarra's original comment about "the editors who did all the work in the first place, log on and find an article you've worked hard on was delisted without prior discussion". Over the past week, as a result of sweeps, there has been a lot of delisting and holding going on, and it must come as a surprise to hard-working editors who have written a particular article. I'd like to ask to be excused from the Sweeps please. Initially thought I could contribute and be part of what is going on, but now would prefer to just participate at WP:GAC when I can. Thanks... Johnfos 09:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a shame some user's articles have to be delisted, but GA status can't really be awarded out of sympathy. Think of poor User:Lord Emsworth who's had 24 of his FAs delisted. Epbr123 09:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's what I have to say, and I'm not pleased that we've lost a reviewer over something so ridiculous as this, so I apologize in advance if this comes off as unsympathetic. Awards can be given out by anyone to anyone for anything. To say that I shouldn't give out awards to reviewers who spend hours of their time reviewing dozens to hundreds of articles because the custodians of some of those articles will be upset that their articles got delisted is just beyond me. You say you don't disagree with the process, you just disagree with the fact that reviewers will be getting rewarded for their long-term dedication to the project. But GAC can award reviewers who fail nominations? Editors can be given barnstar for their participation in XfD which deletes work? That's unfortunate. I'm rewarding them for their work, for the number of reviews they completed, regardless of the review outcome. I'm not rewarding them for how many article custodians they can piss off or offend.

As far as implying that I'm doing something underhanded because I haven't revealed what the awards will be, that's also ridiculous. Here are the reasons the awards have not been revealed:

  • I don't know what they'll be: I don't know how many reviewers we're going to have, how many reviews each reviewer will average, how long reviewers will participate, how quickly to expect everything to go. This has never been done before, so I don't want to say you get award 1 for X number of reviews, and award 2 for Y number of reviews, etc. because I don't know which awards will be most appropriate at this time.
  • It's not about getting awards. From seeing the setup for awards for GAC backlog drives, I don't want reviewers striving for a particular award and stopping. This process is long-term with limited reviewers participating by invitation only. Having awards set encourages an end in participation when a particular milestone has been reached. We don't need that. I want reviewers that are reviewing to improve the process, not simply to gain an award. However, I am going to award them something special for all their efforts, and telling them that is encouragement.

By the time we complete this (estimated to be around 2012 at this rate), over 3,000 reviews will have been completed by a handful of reviewers, the list sure to change (and hopefully grow) over time. So I shouldn't reward that? I can't agree.

Awards will be customized to each reviewer. Some may be handed out at a particular milestone, some reviewers will probably receive more than one. I mean, there are so many variables. Quantity, quality (which I expect from each of these reviewers, otherwise they wouldn't have been invited), dedication, etc. All these things will be factored in when I give the awards. LaraLove 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, many of us are here not for the awards in the first place. Awards are nice for showing appreciation, but I can assure you we're not here to delist articles just so we get a new barnstar. As LaraLove pointed out above, we have thousands of articles to review, and completing the re-reviews is much more important than focusing on awards. This widespread sweep of all current GAs hasn't been done before, and we all recognize that it needs to be done to continue to uphold the quality of GA. I'd prefer not to delist articles, but unfortunately some articles have slowly degraded over time or were passed before the current GA standards. However, if your article is delisted, your can renominate it again when it meets the GA criteria. By doing so, you will further improve your article as you edit it to meet GA standards. --Nehrams2020 04:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Then why aren't you at the very least notifying the main editors of the GA sweep (I only noticed this sweep business through sheer luck)? And why are you treating GAs like FAs? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're posting the notice on the article talk page to alert custodians. We're not treating them like FAs. I don't know that FA does sweeps. I suppose they could... but I don't know. I don't really do much with FA. Regardless, this is a matter of project quality. An article must continue to satisfy the criteria in order to retain it's listing. Simple as that. We're not on a mission to shrink the list. We're on a mission to ensure every listed article meets the criteria. Regards, LaraLove 05:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the main editors are usually the ones in the best position to fix the article. If you tell them, then this will help get article quality up. Isn't that the goal of these sweeps? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my opinion that the majority of editors would have the article watchlisted if they cared that much about it. LaraLove 21:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section retracted

My apologies for the upset message. I did a survey of the editors here, as my assumption was that none of them ever worked on articles to GA or FA status. That is clearly inaccurate, and I've basically wronged good editors, who IMO should be valued more highly than those who only work on meta pages. So my sincerest apologies to all sweepers who I have offended with my post.

I would like to point out that I still don't really feel very encouraged to edit Wikipedia. It would be very nice if you could notify the principle editors of the article sweeps. It's actually quite easy to find out this info, just use this tool: http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act%2C_Title_III It gives a breakdown of editor workload. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting tool, but it shows only edits made before 1 July 2007. As to editor notification, I actually don't want to know who wrote a particular article. I prefer to conduct blind reviews. This is a question of neutrality of a reviewer: if you know the editors, you can be influenced by you knowledge. Ruslik 07:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Click on preferences, it goes back further than this. My point is that often the best ones to fix a good article is the one who contributed to it the most. It also shows that you want to help them out, if you give constructive feedback. I thought the whole point behind GA review was to get the quality of GAs up? I must respectfully disagree with this neutrality suggestion... please! tell the editors who spent hard work (often hours and hours or even days) that their article is going to be delisted from GA!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ta bu also meant that once you had finished reviewing the article and have put it on hold to also leave a message on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article, as they are more likely to assist in addressing the issues since they have spent so much time on it in the past. It's not necessary to focus on which people have written the article before you start reviewing it, but by checking after you have completed the review will allow you to see who you should contact. --Nehrams2020 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For most articles, we alert editors through the article's talk page 7 days before removing them. The few that got bold delisted are the ones that are really obvious they can't make it without major rework. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point he's making is that he wants to be notified on his talk page, and wants that to be a standard in all cases. I just nominated an article for FAR where this procedure is required. Notifying three Wikiprojects and (I think) four users using that tool took me about ten minutes. May not take that long for someone with a faster internet connection, but I can't see requiring this of GAR or sweeps. It's just adding too much to the process and will discourage editors from listing articles, I think. However, if this is proposed and passes, I'll draft a template to be posted to the talk pages. LaraLove 18:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, am I reading this correctly? You aren't interested in notifying principle authors who might be able to fix the articles? Or am I reading this wrongly. I don't see why this is adding too much to the process. Again I say, I thought that sweeps were implemented to improve articles? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The primary author should be notified if an article is put up for review or delisted - we're trying to improve the encyclopedia, so all our actions should be designed to do that. Giving the primary author a chance to address the concerns raised in any review will only benefit the quality of the encyclopedia, and as noted with the FAR process, it is a courteous thing to do. I will be extremely disappointed if one of the three articles I assisted in raising to GA is listed for review without being told. Daniel 05:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if a reviewer can't be stuffed looking up the primary author and contacting them with their concerns, then they probably shouldn't be reviewing articles. May sound harsh, but if this article level is going to maintain credibility, it needs to be i) a high-quality process with high-quality, detailed assessments; and ii) a process designed to improve articles, which is best achieved by raising the issues with the primary author. Daniel 05:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles/Project_quality_task_force/Sweeps&oldid=161496560"