Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:GAN)
Jump to: navigation, search

Main Discussion Nominations Reassessment GA Cup Instructions Criteria Report Help Desk

Second Opinion at Talk:Electromagnetic articulography[edit]

Hi, a second opinion has been requested at Talk:Electromagnetic articulography. Would anyone be willing to take a look at it? Wugapodes (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate GA Review at Talk:Bicycle kick[edit]

The article bicycle kick has been on the list for GA review for a few months. It is the fourth article that I have submitted for GA nomination. Recently, the user Alpinu began to edit the article inappropriately and also began to raise questions of non-neutrality in the article's talk page—the questions have been addressed, albeit apparently not to Alpinu's satisfaction. There was also strange behavior through IP edits, which have been reported to administrators (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alpinu). The user has now initiated a GA review of the article, despite never having shown experience with the process in the English Wikipedia. Unsurprisingly, the "review" he has presented is not really a review (see Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1), but again the same POV-pushing from the talk page. This goes against WP:GAMING. I kindly request that this GA review by Alpinu be removed and that the article be examined by an editor that does not have an ax to grind on this subject. Thanks.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That certainly doesn't read like a complete review, and the comments made in it would be more suitable as suggestions on the talk page. I suppose that it is possible that Alpinu plans to complete the review later? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. If MarshalN20 disagrees with my review (not complete yet) or if he thinks it is inappropriate, he can ask for a new reviewer. On the other hand, I just wonder why my edits are inappropriate since they are based on what the reference states ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Taking into account material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, I think it is better to fix this material as quickly as possible. Regarding the "strange behavior through IP edits", I agree that this should be reported to administrators. Best wishes!--Alpinu (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The reason for your review is not to help evaluate or improve the article based on the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, but rather to discuss the neutrality of the article. You've made this very clear from the start. This article has been patiently waiting for months for a good review. You're disrupting the process, gaming the system. As Larry points out, your concerns "would be more suitable as suggestions on the talk page."
I again request that this review by Alpinu be removed and this article to continue awaiting the review of someone who is actually going to review it based on the GA criteria.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, socking through IP addresses is not a matter to be taken lightly.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, WP:VER and WP:NPOV are part of the GA criteria. Best wishes!--Alpinu (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You don't appear to be using the GA criteria headings to structure your review, though, Alpinu. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Alpinu, you're being very dishonest with the GA process. If you had concerns with certain aspects of the article, these points could (and should) have been raised as comments in the talk page. The GA process requires a reviewer who is committed to examining the article based on all the GA criteria, providing thoughtful suggestions based on experience (in terms of both English writing, as in the prose, and sourcing; not just one or the other).
Moreover, as Karel suggested ([5]), it would have also been helpful to have a reviewer with a neutral viewpoint providing their thoughts on the neutrality of the article. At this point, all you're doing is sabotaging the article because it does not match your truthiness.--MarshalN20 Talk 20:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate Review, No Improvement[edit]

In my talk page, the GA Review bot wrote that the process would take "up to 7 days." The GA Instructions page points out that the review can be completed in about 7 days. It has been well over seven days, and the Talk:Bicycle kick/GA1 continues being anything but a review that addresses the GA criteria standards. It is clear that the "reviewer," the user Alpinu, created the GA page solely to sabotage the article's chances of achieving GA status. This article has been waiting for a dedicated reviewer for various months, and it would be unfair for it to be dismissed at this point. Therefore, I kindly request that the bicycle kick review be taken up by a different user or that the current review be deleted (or archived) and that the article get placed in its prior spot in the GA waiting line. Thank you very much.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

If you withdraw your current nomination and immediately renominate, I'd be willing to do a review this weekend. Wugapodes (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Wugapodes, thank you very much. I will do so promptly. I truly appreciate the response!--MarshalN20 Talk 17:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Input requested on two Australian images[edit]

Joan Lindsay/GA1 I'm a little uncertain of whether or not to let the two images of Joan Lindsay pass. I'm unfamiliar with copyright law in Australia. Would someone please give their input on the template? — Maile (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(IANAL, TINLA) Australia's copyright term is life of the photographer plus seventy years, so for for these pictures taken in 1914 and 1925, they may have entered the public domain at any point since 1984 and 1995, depending on the age of the photographer at the time the pictures were taken, but no sooner. Without knowing the the date of death for the specific photographer for these two photos, determining specific copyright expiry dates is impossible. However, the source (the State Library of Victoria) gives the copyright status as expired for both these pictures, and since there is no obvious flaw in their claim we may simply accept it as valid on the presumption that they know the death date of the photographer.
I am, however, slightly more dubious about the US copyright status of the 1925 image. Granted there are exceptions for works published in the US without a copyright notice, but the exception applies to works published in the US without a copyright notice, and I see no reason to assume these images were ever published in the US.
All in all the copyright situation would appear to be complicated enough that wider input may be necessary to determine what to do. I would suggest Commons:Village pump/Copyright as the place to ask. --Xover (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Per your advice, I am now taking this questions to Commons VP Copyright. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-directing citations back to Wikipedia[edit]

I think this is the first time I've posted here. I'm bringing this as a general issue as I have seen this recently on two GAs for articles on TV episodes nominated at "Did You Know". I'm going to use an example here but its not against any particular editor/ article but I do want to just discuss/mention/propose/remind best practice and maybe this point will improve.

What is happening here is that a reference, in an article, is given to someone else's work correctly. The user is directed to look at say...(Reference. x: Rob Thomas's DVD commentary Veronica Mars: The Complete Third Season) but then the url is not assigned correctly but directed to another wiki article (try it?). This is interfering with what the reader wants. They click to find the source and to see the work done by Rob Thomas but they are redirected back to Wikipedia (annoying on other sites and here). If we have no url then we should just leave it blank. This has been fixed on the article in question, but I thought I'd raise it here as it I have seen it twice on new GAs recently. Thanks for listening to this. Victuallers (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

2nd opinion requested[edit]

Talk:Porcupine (Cheyenne)/GA1 2nd opinion requested. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

And just for the record, I made it clear on the template that I'm handing this over to any reviewer who cares to complete the review. I've done what I can, and I don't feel comfortable passing it. However, in fairness to the nominator, I'm stepping aside. I've done my part. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Take the lead![edit]

Hi folks, am going to run this competition in January. see Wikipedia:Take the lead!. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)