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
Shortcut:

HIV immunity[edit]

Appears to have been listed as a good article since Jan 2015, but without evidence of any review. It's 1850 characters long and probably at the wrong name. Can anyone shed any light? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: My best guess is that User:Valoem copied the Project banners from Talk:HIV. In the absence of any formal review, I think this would be a high Start class article, and might warrant lower priority as well. The folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine might be able to best assess and spruce-up this article. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
@Espresso Addict: Every now and then I see articles that are assessed as GA class, even though they never went though a GA review. See this discussion for further guidance: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Procedure for cleaning up "Good Articles" that never went through a GA review?. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense, Animalparty! I'll blank the reviews, assess for WP:Viruses and leave the rest blank. Thanks for the quick responses. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
A number of years ago, we had a drive to sweep and fix up older good articles to ensure they still met the criteria. Perhaps we need another one of these? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not a GA tag accidentally copied from another article. Valoem talk contrib 18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Good article reviewing drive[edit]

I was thinking of putting in a grant request for a contest in March. Well two contests, one a content building contest like Wales or Vital articles or whatever and the other a GA reviewing drive. £150 in Amazon vouchers allocated to a GA reviewing drive, with £100 given to the best GA reviewer in a month and £25 runners up. More kudos would be given to tackling older nominations and overall winners would be judged on the quality of their reviews as well as numbers, otherwise people would just speedy pass as many as possible! I want to do a trial, but something like that which might urge some editors to do more reviews and increase the quality of their reviews might work. Worth a try I think. I think part of the current problem is that articles often sit around stale for six months and nobody feels compelled to review them. That has a negative effect on editors who want to promote articles to GA and many give up on nominating things out of frustration. If we can get some sort of mechanishm which rewards editors who produce quality work and nominate articles and something at the same time to encourage people to get them reviewed I think we can increase the rate that articles are promoted and increase the quality of reviewing and articles at the same time. Potentially something could also be organized to run a sweeps on existing articles and ensure listed articles are up to 2016 quality standards. Again rewards would be given to editors who re review and improve/retain the most articles. That could be considered later, but we need to start somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

While I'm always one to support trying to get rid of backlogs, you might run into problems as the WP:WIKICUP is going on at that time which also is a competition that rewards quality contribution and reviews. That's not to say don't do it, I just think the time frame might need to be shifted so that we get more participation. I would also recommend talking to the judges of the WP:GACUP as they might have some insight on how to run the reviewing drive. Wugapodes (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any involvement in this year's competition, but certainly the first round last year saw an overlap with the GA Cup in the first round. All I noticed was that competitors entered reviews in both competitions rather than any specific decline. A March start for a reviewing drive would coincide with the first month of the second round when the competitors get cut down to a maximum of 64. Personally, I think that this would be seen as a boon by most competitors as it'll mean that their GAs could be reviewed quicker. Miyagawa (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Obviously more kudos would be given to reviewers who review the oldest ones first but the drive would reward the editor who produces the most quality reviews within a month. I think it's worth a trial, a lot of editors don't participate in the wikicup anyway so could be involved with reviewing. As Miyagawa says it would also assist WikiCup participants who have to deal with uneveness in article reviewing, with some having to wait months longer than others. A drive for March would reduce that if successful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
For me, the Wikicup seems a bit too stressful to participate in, but something like this might be more tempting. So I wouldn't participate in both, in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
As a judge in the GA Cup, I'm all for having a new GAN backlog drive. The last one was almost two years ago, and they have been nothing but beneficial to the project. The GA Cup is a separate entity and we're debating a revamp for the next one. I think that decreasing backlog wouldn't effect either Cups. We're never going to run out of GANs. In fact I think we will never drop below 100 GANs. In the mean time, we don't know when the next GA Cup is going to run so a new sweep in March/February sounds like a good idea. JAGUAR  18:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Jaguar Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm proposing something for content for Wales for March, it would have to be put off until a later date if we did anything, but the way I see it, something to perk up editors and get them reviewing articles and making it more exciting to do so would only be a good thing. Long term I think we should really have around 4 reviewing drives in a year to ensure that backlogs don't clog up, Waiting over 3 months to have an article reviewed is unacceptable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
"Content for Wales? Bring it on!"

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Dr. Blofeld, Wugapodes, Miyagawa, FunkMonk, Jaguar, SNUGGUMS, Figureskatingfan: The next GA Cup will probably be this March - do we really want a separate drive running at the same time? Especially since the WikiCup is also going on.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, it wouldn't be March now as I'm doing the Wales one then.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, content for Wales and Wales ;-) Jaguar, given that March is out, do you think you'd be interested in running something perhaps later in February before it starts to help clear the log?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's much point, given that if the GA Cup was due to start in as little as four weeks time. Any drive would be best placed after the the end of the cup in order to wrap up anything that the competitors didn't already get. Miyagawa (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
When is the end of the cup?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The GA Cup typically lasts three months, but we're trying to revamp it this year so a lot of changes might be made - it's still in the planning process. If the timing doesn't change, then it would most likely end in May. I'm definitely in favour of having a short but powerful GAN sweep in the first week of February, and then having it end on 28 February (is it a leap year this year?), but something like that would be short notice. All in all, we definitely need to decrease the GAN backlog; a sweep is more lenient and focuses on quick but pointy reviews as opposed to the GA Cup tournament. JAGUAR  14:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Karas (anime)/GA1[edit]

I've been trying to help clear up WikiProject Anime and manga's GAN backlog. The above GAN's reviewer has not edited since November, so I decided to add comments to the page (while not actually either passing or failing it; please note that this is my first time making an input on a GAN of an article which I did not contribute to). Given the circumstances, is it alright for me to take over reviewing the article, or not? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved with GA reviewing! It looks like the first nomination was closed. If you are willing to take on a review, you can start one by going to Talk:Karas (anime) and clicking the "start review" link. I would recommend reading the instructions for reviewing first as well as what the good article criteria are not. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the GA help desk or ask me. Thanks for the help in reviewing, and best of luck! Wugapodes (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Former heads of state[edit]

A former head of state that is still alive, should go in "World history" or "Politics and government"? Cambalachero (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Cambalachero, you did not say, but I assume you are speaking about the Carlos Menem BLP article. It has not been nominated for GA. I notice that its talk page says it is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government and says nothing about history, so there's your answer. Prhartcom (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I intended to nominate that article, as it is basically complete in content and referencing. But, as I'm not a native speaker of English, I requested a copyedit before nominating. I made the question in the meantime, so I have the answer by the point when I nominate it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Pickup[edit]

Would anybody be willing to take over these GA reviews I started a while back? I've got to go into hospital for an uncertain amount of time and feel bad enough as it is that I've delayed their reviews until now, let alone in possibly 2-4 weeks when I emerge from hospital. It would be very appreciated. Azealia911 talk 11:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice User:Cartoon network freak has generously agreed to review the second one above. If necessary, I can put the first one back in its same position in the queue if no one else steps forward; User:11JORN can ping me in a week or so. Prhartcom (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)