Wikipedia talk:Good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Split animals?[edit]

There has long been a hidden comment requesting some sort of split of the animal section, but on what grounds? Taxonomic? Or could be extant/extinct? Also, just changed the subsection "animal genera" to taxa, as most were species. FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. I see what you mean there at Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#Animals. I have not your biological skill, but I have generic advice: I remember splitting the literature section that had the same problem into fifteen much more browsable sections. To know what new categories to have, I let it sort itself: I opened each article to learn what it consisted of, then temporarily noted its category name in all caps directly on the line of that article on the list page (i.e. changing the line "Jaws (novel)" to "NOV Jaws (novel)"; I didn't Save the new page but Previewed it). I proceed that way for a few hours, creating new categories as I discovered them, until it was done. Then I just sorted the page by the noted temporary category names. Another idea I did separately was Save the new category subheadings on the page, but without any articles under them, then announce this new change here; other editors could then comment on the new category subheadings. Of course, the last step was to Save the page of new category subheadings with the articles under them, removing the temporary category names from each line only at the last moment. It was a bold project but I didn't receive much resistance, so I recommend it wholeheartedly if you are up to it. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Cool, the main obstacle is to find out which way to split it. Hopefully some more people will have a look at this. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I was thinking that the articles should be split into which group they are in (eg. Arthropoda), but another alternative would be based on age (eg. Cambrian animals). Another possibility is to divide it as small as (eg. Cambrian Arthropoda), but I think that is a little too specific. IJReid discuss 14:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with dividing up animals along very broad taxonomic groups rather than geologic age or extinct status (or perhps an extinct section could follow each section). The categories should be divisions any high schooler would recognize (e.g. Mammals, Insects, Fishes, Reptiles, and Other), and not all groups need be monophyletic clades. Too many categories with too few articles would be over-splitting, so for stylistic reasons related groups (e.g. "Insects & Spiders" or simply "Arthropods") or unrelated groups (e.g. "Other invertebrates") could be lumped until there are enough articles to robustly populate a category. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with very broad taxonomic groups then, wasn't sure what the standards for splitting these lists are. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: A good way to quickly assess relative numbers of taxa would be to browse Project categories (e.g. Category:GA-Class Insects articles and Category:GA-Class mammal articles), and/or external tools like Article list tool. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


After searching through the various GA animal lists and filtering non-taxonomic articles, domestic breeds, and individuals, I get the following rough break down, sorted into fairly broad/recognizable groups (and found a couple articles not currently listed). All include extinct members, with the exception of Reptiles & Amphibians, but the Dinosaurs could be merged.

  • Fish (including sharks): 131
  • Mammals: 124
  • Birds: 90
  • Reptiles & Amphibians (excluding dinosaurs but including other prehistoric reptiles): 36
  • Dinosaurs: 43
  • Arthropods: 64
  • Other invertebrates (sponges, worms, molluscs, etc.): 27

Do these seem like reasonable groups? I realize that Reptiles & amphibians is not a natural group, but is commonly used (just see any herpetology book). I'm fine with a single invertebrate group as well. I hesitate to make too many more categories, even in the larger categories like Fish and Mammals, to prevent too much splitting, there's nothing terribly wrong with large categories: we're just trying to showcase articles here, not teach a lesson in taxonomy. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, seems there are enough dinosaurs to keep them separate. FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
FunkMonk and Animalparty, I urge you to proceed with splitting the "Animals" section according to the suggested groups above, as no one objects and it will be useful to others. Feel free to use the trick I describe above to get this done, if you wish. Quick questions: I see that the "Animals" is currently split into two groups, "Animal taxa" (510 articles) and "Animal domestic breeds, types, and individuals" (96 articles), and after noticing the numbers above add up to 515, I believe you are actually talking about splitting "Animal taxa" into the above seven sub-groups and leaving "Domestic breeds" as an eighth sub-group of "Animals", at an equal level to the other seven, is that right? If so, I see that each of the eight sub-groups will use "======" six equal signs in their heading, right? And I don't suggest using the parenthetical words in the suggested groups above, right? Prhartcom (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, domestic breeds should be separate. As for doing the split itself, I'm not much into the technical side of things, and my math skills are so bad that I'll probably do more harm than good... FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll work on this in the next day or two, as I've already got a spreadsheet of the animal articles, sorted by group. I'll need to check for any newly added articles, and make sure I don't inadvertently omit any from the list. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Great, good luck. You may want to take the word "Animal" out of the eighth sub-heading title. When it's done, for fun, edit the page and remove the line containing the "NO TOC" magic words found at the top and Preview the page (don't Save it), just to look at the new Table of Contents. Cheers, Prhartcom (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Salvage Help Requested[edit]

I gave an immediate failure to the article George Washington Truett. Aside from missing a number of GA-criteria, there was something extremely fishy about the editors in question and I deferred to my gut instinct to make this an immediate fail instead of wasting resources on a review that would have been extremely painstaking due to the volume of problems with the article. Anyway, I got a severe browbeating from BlueMoonset who took me to the woodshed over my decision to fail it immediately. In response, and against my better judgment, I invested significant time into a second review (including tracking down and uploading audio) only to see the nominating editor then immediately indeffed for sockpuppetry before they could begin to respond. While it's good to know my gut instinct is still working to A+ level, I'm disappointed at having spent all this time on the (second ... sigh) review. I was wondering if anyone would mind taking over this article so my (reluctant) work isn't wasted? Thanks. (Pinging Prhartcom and SilkTork in case they're available.) LavaBaron (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you mean take over as the nominator? Well, I could do that; I've just had a look at the sources and they appear to be fine except for a couple of them, and the gentleman was from my city. I'm looking it now. Prhartcom (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious about LavaBaron's gut, since the original GAN of the Truett article was made back on March 17, 2015, by Ducknish. Ducknish had made some significant edits that improved the article (though there were certainly issues left over), and who is currently some sort of Wikipedia intern. If there's something "extremely fishy" about Ducknish—a serious accusation—perhaps LavaBaron could explain what that was, or issue an apology for the characterization. Remember that the second nomination, by the now-blocked sockpuppet Spaghetti07205, was only made after the immediate fail of the first that had been submitted by Ducknish over four months earlier. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting; did you notice that the indefed editor responded to the GA1 reviewer as if they were the nominator? And the real nominator never responded? Ah, well. So, I'm still taking a look at this article. Prhartcom (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks so much, Prhartcom! Sorry to hoist this on you. LavaBaron (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
LavaBaron, I regret to say I have not mustered the energy to make GA improvements to this article as it personally does not interest me, but of course that is a vote against me and not the article nor your review efforts. I made a small improvement and BlueMoonset has also, perhaps they would like to bring it to GA under your review, but otherwise you may have to fail it again. [Note: Perhaps that this discussion should have been posted elsewhere; see notice at top of page.] Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Prhartcom, since LavaBaron has undertaken the review, it's now up to him to either continue it or ask someone else to take over—he may have been asking you to assume responsibility for the review itself rather than fix up the article as a nominator stand-in. As for the issues raised in the review, I believe I have made corrections that address all of the issues that LavaBaron has raised. This doesn't mean that it is necessarily ready for listing, either because I may not have been sufficiently thorough in doing so or there may well be other issues to be found. I am willing to at least attempt any future fixes, should LavaBaron find additional issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thank-you, yes, I may have misunderstood. I'm glad you were able to make the outstanding corrections; in fact, if LavaBaron is still reviewing, you could possibly take over as the official nominator! If not, I could be coaxed into being the reviewer if necessary. Cheers, all. Prhartcom (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion[edit]

I'm looking for a second opinion (or third, or fourth) at Talk:Paulo Francis/GA4. If you are willing to help, please do! Wugapodes (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wugapodes, this request would be better on the WT:GAN page, which deals with good article nominations. You're likely to get more assistance there, since more people watchlist that page. As it says at the top of this talk page, this is for the list of actual good articles. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I misunderstood the banner. My apologies. I have moved it to WT:GAN. Wugapodes (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Passing articles after failing them.[edit]

I failed two articles on review by myself by one nominator due to no response in the seven day grace period and extremely low activity by the nominator in that time, only a few edits, and no acknowledgement indicated to me that the he needed extra time due to real life. I failed them this morning, on the seventh day, and the nominator has since proceeded to come online, see it failed, and made the improvements, and has asked me if they are now acceptable to pass. Am I allowed to remove the failed GA templates which have been processed by the bot and replaced them with passed GA templates, or does he have to re-nominate them and wait for them to be reviewed a second time? A speedy response on this would be great to get it sorted quickly.  — Calvin999 16:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually work on Good Articles at all (for some reason I have this page watchlisted), but I would say you should just change them to passed if you think they now meet the requirements. If they are of Good Article quality and have been reviewed, I see no reason why they shouldn't be promoted, and making the nominator re-nominate them would use up other reviewers time that could instead be spent reviewing other articles. Calathan (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks for clarifying. I didn't know if it was allowed, or I was allowed to do it.  — Calvin999 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Calvin999, this question would be better asked at WT:GAN (about the review process) rather than here. People have certainly reopened recently concluded GA reviews before, if they closed them and then a response came in that made it appropriate to reopen the review. I wouldn't just change the result without opening the review; then you have a review page that said the nomination failed and a status of GA, which makes no sense. There's certainly no requirement that holds be exactly 7 days. But, as I said, going to the GAN talk page is best with this kind of question. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

GA status for "Inna"[edit]

I just finished the editing process for the article Inna. I think it is now ready for the Good-article-status. Can anyone help me with this process (or stuff like this)? I'm not so long on Wikipedia. Thanks!

Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak, you'll want to read up on the Good Article criteria, which is at WP:WIAGA, to make sure your article fulfills these requirements. Some of these criteria are not obvious: for example, 1b talks about the manual of style guidelines, including for the lead (intro) section (see WP:LEAD). Your article, at just under 30,000 characters, should have a lead section of around three or maybe four paragraphs (never more than four); it currently has five. Also, significant facts should not appear in the lead unless they are also in the body of the article—the lead summarizes the article—yet in the lead's second sentence you talk about her having a billion YouTube hits, a major detail that's only in the lead. Glancing through the references at the bottom, I see that there's an error noted for reference 81 that needs fixing. You'll want to clean up as much as you can. See Wikipedia:Guide for nominating good articles for more information.
When you're ready to nominate, go to the GA nomination instructions page and read the "Nominating" section for instructions on what to do to make the actual nomination. Best of luck! If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me, or you can post to the WT:GAN page. (This isn't actually the correct page to post questions on the GA nomination process, but there's no point in moving it now that I've answered.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad ordering[edit]

It would appear that some of the "art" articles are in the "architecture" section. For example the National Police Memorial, The Dream (sculpture), World War I Memorial (East Providence, Rhode Island), Sir Bevil Grenville's Monument and Statue of James II, Trafalgar Square.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

TangoTizerWolfstone, thank-you for your diligent observations. It appears you are right, and it looks like it needs the attention of a single editor rather than the multiple editors who of course add one article at a time. We don't have a staff of workers here at the GA Help Desk, but I have done this kind of reorganization of the articles within the sub-lists and I hope you also feel encouraged as well to move the articles into the correct sub-lists and update the tallies yourself. If you are able to do so, thanks very much for improving Wikipedia. Prhartcom (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)