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!
The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Sorry, we weren't able to suggest any articles for you. Something is probably wrong on our end.[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
It appears that more pages are hit by ColourWolf, and I have a lot of reason to suspect that all, or most of the MediaCorp drama pages that features a synopsis have fake contents, which can render most of these pages as hoaxes. Please check them carefully. Thanks. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the Plot section should be shortened, not expanded; it is already too long. As mentioned above, I intend to completely rewrite it in a few months. The new Plot section will be a summary of the characters and key conflicts in the movie.
Referenced information on Singaporean movies is scarce. Therefore, I have a tendency to include any and all information I can find about the production when I write Production sections. After my rewrite of the Plot section, I will look through the Production section, determine which sentences are irrelevant and remove them.
Readers who have watched the movie will be familiar with the principal's catchphrase: "according to the law". In his movies, especially Just Follow Law, Jack Neo often pokes fun of the Singaporean tendency to blindly follow rules and defer to authority. Since, like you, most readers would not have watched the movie, I will have to make it clearer to them that "according to the law" is a catchphrase.
Mr. Yeo gives speeches and presentations as part of his job and is paid S$500 per hour for doing so. When tutoring Jerry, Mr. Yeo sees that he is playing with Pokemon cards and tells the boy that "people would pay S$500 for an hour of [his] time", trying to emphasise the importance of studying hard. Being only 8 and naive, Jerry thinks that he can save up S$500 to "buy" an hour of Mr. Yeo's father's time, as he wants his father to watch his concert.
According to IMDb (and as can be inferred by reading the dates of the newspaper articles used as references), I Not Stupid Too was released in Malaysia and Hong Kong in 2006, the same year (and a few months after) it was released in Singapore.
Although I will eventually rewrite the Plot section, your copyedit and comments are appreciated and I will take them into account during my rewrite. Would you be willing to copyedit the rewritten version upon request?
The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with your amended answer and have thus supported your RfB. If I did not have to spend the last hour attending an Economics tutorial, I might have been the 200th supporter. Well, I guess I can't always get what I want. By the way, thanks for being a great friend and copy-editor! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just letting you know that as it currently stands, you've got a vote in the support column and the neutral column. GlassCobra08:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Yes, I'll be happy to copyedit this article. It may be a couple of days before I can begin, but I will get started as soon as I can. – Scartol • Tok11:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished my copyedit. There wasn't much to fix; the writing in the article is solid and thorough. A few repairs here and there. Good luck with the GA! – Scartol • Tok15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am trying to add something to peer reviews with no replies that are at least a week old - there are 17 here still waiting for anything: {{Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog}}.
I checked and both of your review requests now have replies, so I will respectfully pass in order to help people whose requests are still waiting. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°01:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, a new movie by Jack Neo, Ah Long Pte Ltd was released, and I have drafted a brief article on it. I noticed that you have contributed significantly to the articles of other movies by Jack Neo, perhaps you would be glad to join in for the completion of the Plot section for Ah Long Pte Ltd? Secretliker (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see that my contributions to articles about Jack Neo movies have been noticed. I would be happy to help write the Plot section (and Cast section) once the VCD is released. As for the Production and Reception sections, I will wait until next year, when the movie has received enough reviews (and awards), to write them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as u are the project leader of our community GA drive. I wld like to inform u on a GAN fiasco which I encountered recently. I hope this unfortunate episode will not repeat itself during your on-going collaboration with fellow SGpedians in any of our up-coming GANs or the NDP project in the near future. To keep the long story short, please refer to this discussion thread 1 & 2. Fyi & rgds. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this matter to my attention. Unfortunately, such incidents do happen occasionally and will continue to occur. Every experienced GA reviewer started as a new reviewer who made similar mistakes. The GA project, which I am a member of, is currently developing a proposal for training of GA reviewers that will hopefully make these fiascos much rarer.
Try not to bite new reviewers who do a poor job. Assume good faith and politely question their mistakes, while acknowledging when they are correct. If you believe an article was unfairly failed (or passed despite not meeting the GA criteria), you should request a second opinion from an experienced reviewer (I personally recommend User:Dihydrogen Monoxide) or file a GA reassessment request.
Thanks for the info but I've already done what is necessary on my own initiative earlier. Fyi, the article is currently undergoing a review by an experienced reviewer assigned by the GA project afterwards. I was not upset earlier, just felt incredulous at the comments made by the original reviewer & it really sucks BIG TIME. When challeged, his replies & actions turn evasive, & even a sincere apology was not heard to date, does stretch the good faith part to the seams for anyone to accept. Read the full & latest comments (incl. wiki-links) posted on both talkpages & u will get what I mean. Lastly, I've been following the GA forum as a observer since last Sep. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:I Not Stupid Too screenshot 1.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:I Not Stupid Too screenshot 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:I Not Stupid Too screenshot 2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:I Not Stupid Too screenshot 2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The June 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)?
It's that time of year again – we're wiping everyone's name off of the active members list and doing a project roll call. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Filmsparticipants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. You can also add your name to any of our many task forces!
It's also time to start the WikiProject Films coordinator selection process! We are aiming to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for suggesting these articles for GA nomination. I didn't nominate them yet because I didn't think they were quite ready. "Wang Yuegu" is a bit short of information about her early years – can't seem to find anything, so do help if you'd like too. "Theresa Goh" is more or less ready. There will probably a few updates arising out of her current participation in the 2008 Summer Paralympics. By the way, just heard that Laurentia Tan has won Singapore's first-ever Paralympics medal. Would you like to collaborate on an article on her? — Cheers, JackLee–talk–14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Jacklee! I nominated the two articles for the GA drive because I believe they are nearly ready, but have some minor issues (which I mentioned in the nomination), which the GA drive collaboration aims to address. In other words, 90% of the work is done, but we need to do the remaining 10%. The lead section of Theresa Goh really needs to be shortened; you do not need to list every competition she won (only the most notable ones). Once the lead is rewritten (I would be happy to help), with a prose and NPOV check, it should be ready.
Laurentia Tan won our first Paralympic medal? That's great - Onward Singapore! I have always wanted to write GAs about Singaporean footballers and would be happy to collaborate with you on a GA about Laurentia Tan. Perhaps we should wait until a few months after the Paralympics are over, so the article is stable. By then, a couple of my GA-writing projects should be complete.
I've started on an article on Laurentia Tan in my sandbox. Feel free to work on the article there. An Internet search needs to be done to find out more information. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–19:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work so far, Jacklee! But why does the infobox say her medal is a silver, while the rest of the article says it is a bronze? The lead section is also rather short, but I suppose we need to find more information for the rest of the article first.
Although I would like to collaborate with you, I noticed that we are both "content writers" who take time to gather sources and organise information before writing. I am concerned that we may end up stepping on each other's toes. (A collaboration between a "content writer" and a "polisher" - who focuses on things like prose and style - would not have such issues.) Perhaps we could "divide and conquer" our content writing? For example, I could focus on her sporting career while you focus on her personal life.
Do you have access to a newspaper archive like Factiva (or a Wikifriend with access who helps you by searching and e-mailing you the articles)? Without the newspaper articles Mark sent me through Factiva, I could not have written my two GAs. Unfortunately, Mark no longer has Factiva (he just graduated from the university which provided him the service), so we need someone else to help us find newspaper articles (especially those that date back several years)
By the way, when adopting [[Theresa Goh]], why did you remove Flag of Singapore from the nominations list (and not adopt Wang Yuegu)? Despite failing GAN in January, the article still has considerable GA potential; even if you no longer wish to work on it, others can help address the issues. Was it an accident? If so, either of us can re-add it to the nominations list.
I didn't realize the "silver medal" error appeared in the infobox. Thanks for spotting that; I've just fixed it. I've never actually collaborated on an article before, so haven't really thought in detail about the mechanics of how that might work. I just thought that if you had time, you could do a general search of the Internet using a search engine like Google and incorporate any information that turns up. Where the Laurentia Tan article is concerned (and, in fact, "Theresa Goh" and "Wang Yuegu" as well), I haven't come across any news reports or websites mentioning much about their personal lives, so perhaps it may not be possible to create a "Personal life" section for each of those articles at present.
Actually, it so happens that I've just been given access to Factiva. I will be joining SMU to teach in November but the super-efficient University has already assigned me a user ID and password so I can already use its digital resources. I haven't quite figured out how it works yet, but if you need anything let me know and I'll try to help if I have the time.
Did I remove "Flag of Singapore" from the nominations list as well? I can't recall what I did. I know it was also listed in the "Pending" subsection but the information about it was totally out of date so I moved it to "Failed". Come to think of it, if articles have remained on the list for a long time and no one has adopted them, perhaps they should be removed and replaced by other articles because this shows that there is not enough interest in them. Or from time to time you may want to post a message on the talk page to inform people about unadopted articles and encourage participation. I didn't adopt "Wang Yuegu" yet as at the moment there doesn't seem to be much prospect in expanding the article – there just doesn't seem to be any more information about her out there. Also, I'm already spending far too much time on Wikipedia! Good news, by the way: a Flickr member has agreed to permit the use of one of his photographs of Feng Tianwei. Will add the image to the article soon. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–04:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You now have access to Factiva? Congratulations! Do you use MSN, GTalk or IRC? When I start my next few GA-writing projects, I might request a Factiva search from you. With access to Factiva, you will find plenty of newspaper articles about Wang and Tan, some dating back several years! Hopefully some of these newspaper articles will contain information about their personal lives.
Since you stated that your removal of Flag of Singapore from the nominations list was an accident, I have restored the article to the list. As for the collaboration, I suggest that we "divide and conquer". For example, I could focus on her sporting career while you could focus on her personal life (as suggested above), or I could focus on gathering and organising information while you convert the points to prose.
Actually, I don't use MSN, GTalk or IRC. The best way to contact me is to leave messages on my talk page, as I pretty much log into Wikipedia daily. Regarding collaborating on the Laurentia Tan article, I think it would be a good idea if you gathered and organized information while I work on the prose. I did a Google search last night and reviewed about 10 to 12 pages of search results, but didn't find a lot of information about her. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could do a Factiva search for "Laurentia Tan" (take your time to get used to the interface), Gmail me all the newspaper articles and give me several weeks to look through them? Once I have finished gathering and organising the information in the newspaper articles, I will Gmail you the information, structured into sections and point form, for you to convert into prose. We could do this during the December holidays, when the article would be more stable and I would have more time to work on it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Laurentia Tan" article is almost ready to be launched. I have another suggestion: why don't you start on an article on Yap Pin Xiu, since she has just won Singapore's first silver Paralympic medal in swimming? I had a look at Factiva yesterday -- it's quite easy to use. I can do a search and forward you articles about her so you can start on it. What would be the best way of getting the articles to you -- e-mailing them to you, or posting them on your talk page? — Cheers, JackLee–talk–07:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her name is Yip Pin Xiu, not Yap Pin Xiu, and she previously had a Wikipedia biography, which was speedy deleted by Xaosflux (screw deletionists). Do not post the articles on my talk page, unless you want to make it unloadable and be sued by Singapore Press Holdings! Go ahead and flood my Gmail inbox; I have used only 15% of my storage. Newspaper articles on Yip and Tan are both welcome; send them to me if you cannot wait for stability.
Hopefully the newspaper articles will reveal some information about their personal lives. There is currently a discussion about whether articles about athletes need "Personal life" sections to be broad; do check it out. In my opinion, short Singapore-related GAs (such as Aldwinteo's Long Ya Men and Early Founders Memorial Stone), as they truly embody the spirit of what the GA project is about; do write more short Singapore-related GAs!
Oh, yes. Forgot about the copyright point. Now, what's your e-mail address? I tried clicking on the "Email this user" link but you don't have an e-mail address set up. If you don't want to post it on this page, send me an e-mail by clicking on the "Email this user" link on my user page. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–09:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the e-mails; I have received them. Unfortunately, my computer sometimes has trouble with PDFs. PDFs are also tricky to work with because searching and copy-pasting the text is difficult. In future, could you please send me all Factiva e-mails in HTML format (see the e-mail attachment I sent you)? Sorry for the inconvenience. Perhaps you could wait until November to resend the newspaper articles to me? By then, the article content would be more stable and the school holidays would have started, giving me time to go through the sources and write the article.
I noticed that you nominated Theresa Goh and Laurentia Tan for GA status. Both articles are nearly there. The lead section of Theresa Goh is too long; it does not need to mention every competition Goh won (only the most notable, such as the Paralympics). As for Laurentia Tan, please be careful about giving undue weight to the debate about recognition of Paralympians (a paragraph is fine, but two paragraphs and a quote are nearly overkill). Can I safely assume that you have already searched Factiva for newspaper articles about them and combed the newspaper articles for information about their personal lives? You can still improve the articles while they are awaiting review. Keep up the good work!
Aiyoh, you're going to make me do the search again? OK, lah, no problem. :-) Yes, I did Factiva searches on Theresa Goh and Laurentia Tan – nothing much else to add. — Cheers, JackLee–talk–09:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The September 2008 WikiProject Films coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of candidates. Additionally, we are keeping nominations open during the voting period, in case any additional editors wish to nominate themselves. Please vote here by September 28!
The September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Good to know someone's working on Singapore articles. Your idea of "interactive" copyediting is quite novel -- I've never tried it before. I am a working professional, however, and I actually don't spend much time on the internet at home. In fact I've not used msn, gtalk or irc on a regular basis for years. As such it'll be easier for me to copyedit drafts ad hoc. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. If you are interested in copyediting articles about Singaporean sportspeople, but do not use instant messaging software, we could try copyediting through e-mail (Gmail is best for this, due to its conversation feature). I would e-mail you an attachment which includes the draft and a list of questions; you would e-mail back an attachment with the draft copyedited and my questions answered. How about that? Of course, we would need to exchange e-mail addresses first. This is mine; what's yours? (By the way, have you considered becoming a prolific writer of Singapore-related GAs?) --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed my address. As for the question in paranthesis, no, not really. I don't have access to resources that facilitate that and there's also a lack of interest at the moment. Chensiyuan (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm afraid with some stressful work commitments at the moment, I won't be able to help out with the copyediting. And like Chensiyuan I don't have IRC, etc, anyway. Hope you find some help. Peanut4 (talk) 23:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The November 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for me at least, "a gold and a silver medal" is correct (it suggests that there are two medals, as opposed to "a gold and silver medal," which would suggest one medal with both gold and silver in it). Also, just for future reference, to report errors in the DYK hooks, you can report at WT:DYK (Wikipedia talk:Did you know) if they are in the queue; if you see an error when it has already reached the main page, you can report it at WP:ERRORS.
On 5 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yip Pin Xiu, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch><>°°04:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Yes, Wikipedia does have articles about Huang Na and Took Leng How. I plan to write an article about the murder case (Murder of Huang Na), improve it to GA status and redirect the two biographical articles to it. According to the BLP policy: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Cover the event, not the person." So what do you think of my mutual peer review offer? --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zero (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:I Not Stupid Too screenshot 1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
