Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 13

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


Good articles which are found wanting at FAC

Following this discussion on what to do when an article's GA status is brought into question at FAC, I have set up Category:Good articles in need of review to provide a mechanism for drawing GA editors' attention to problematic articles. The category is automatically listed by a bot, and changes can be watchlisted here. At the moment this list is transcluded onto the good article reassessment page.

To add an article, just place its talk page in the category. This feature is experimental, and comments and suggestions are most welcome. In particular, it is not intended as a substitute for community reassessment or GA Sweeps: it is preferable to open an individual reassessment or request a community reassessment rather than ask others to do it instead!

The intention is that GAs which are unsuccessful at FAC and have obvious weaknesses be added to the category for review by the GA process. However, it could also be useful for drawing attention to good article nominations which are passed without an adequate review. Geometry guy 11:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Might be good to suggest the FAC crowd should read WP:WIAGA before adding Category:Good articles in need of review to an article, otherwise we may get flooded with articles that are acceptable GAs but not FAs. --Philcha (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I've started a parallel thread at WT:FAC. The aim is to improve connectivity between the processes. I would note that many FAC reviewers contribute to GA, and most are aware of the differences in criteria. I'd like to gently discourage group labels :-) Geometry guy 11:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the principle, and we both know friends who review for both GA and FA. OTOH I've also seen enough disparagement of GA at WT:FAC and in individual reviews, and the authors of such comments need a reminder to read WP:WIAGA. --Philcha (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


I have delisted the following medical article as they were not broad enough in scope. I hope I have the syntax correct:

Do the number of good article automatically adjust themselves or is this something that must be done manually? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about the article count as much as making sure the talk pages are all appropriately adjusted and the actual entries at WP:GA are dealt with. I do believe it's automatic for the GA count. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Equine nutrition

Wondering if this should be classified under organism rather than health and medicine?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, since the article is more about nutrition than the animal itself. -Ed!(talk) 16:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Best to ask the Horses project. --Philcha (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops, didn't see this until just now. As a member of the Equine WP, I would agree with Ed in that it is more about nutrition than about the horse itself, so is better under health and medicine. However, I don't think its position really matters a ton in the overall scheme of things, so if Doc James feels it fits better under the organism category, then please feel free to move it. Dana boomer (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New sub-subsection of War and military

In section "History," subsection "War and Military," sub-subsection "Weapons and military equipment," I think there is a disproportinante number of ships in the section. May I suggest creating a "ships" sub-subsection in "War and Military?" -Ed!(talk) 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This would make sense to me: sub-subsections can be created in response to demand. Try to make them as broad as possible: naval or military vessels might be more appropriate than "ships". Geometry guy 23:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion, although would suggest "Warships" as the title to prevent confusion with civilian vessels.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead and do it, it is getting long. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
New sub-sumsection "Warships" has been created. Astoundingly, 130 of the 161 articles in "Weapons and Military Equipment" were ships or ship-related. An interesting indicator of where many Wikipedians have been putting forth a lot of energy. -Ed!(talk) 03:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Featured_articles

Portal:Featured_articles, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Featured_articles and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Featured_articles during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ruslik_Zero 13:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Spam at GA

Just a note that Zithan (talk · contribs), sockpuppet of crat/admin/OS Nichalp (talk · contribs) (now impeached by arbcom) nominated four articles that he wrote for business clients for GAN in return for money, and two passed. His most recent article is currently up at AFD as a whitewash/spam YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Another Good article by Zithan (talk · contribs) - Marketing performance measurement and management

Marketing performance measurement and management is another article by Zithan (talk · contribs). See Talk:Marketing performance measurement and management/GA1. It also had a peer review. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Marketing performance measurement and management/archive1.It seems to have an agenda in that it sources certain articles, but I am not qualified to evaluate this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Harder to Breathe

I just promoted this article and somehow the GA status does not show on the article page, can't see what I have done wrong? I have purged my browser several times. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please forget this, it is fine now, must have been severe server lag. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Transport in India

Not sure where this should be listed; could a GA regular address this please? I'm not sure where on the transport section it belongs. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see the problem. The categorization could do with improvement, methinks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Same for Transportation in New York City, which is now categorized under 'Railroad Transport' and its not all about railroad only. Also, same for Transportation in Omaha. Probably, there can be a 'General' subcategory under 'Transport'.--GDibyendu (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. In general, I think WP:GA is over-categorized, but that discussion's for another day... Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, put them all under a "By region" sub-category. That's how it is for Music which has a "By nation, people, region or country" subcat. Jay (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 Done I've added a category Transport by region on the page. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Have just passed Mark Steel's in Town - a radio comedy series, but not drama. I placed it in the actors, performers category, but surely there should be a radio category, also comedy? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have moved it to the Television and radio non-fiction section. mattbr 07:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps July update

The GA Sweeps process is continuing to move at a good pace, as June's total of swept articles reached 290! We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. If everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when it was first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. I am again inviting any experienced GAN/GAR reviewers to consider reviewing some articles. If you're interested please read the instructions here. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Do people keep that the incentive system for the sweeps is effective? I was thinking of whether it might be useful at WP:FAR and commented at WT:FAR. I know a lot of people at FA don't like it and think it promotes driveby reviews, but in the case of FAR, I don't think it could bring down the average level of detail. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominations For An Good Article THAT Lacks NPOV?

Dear Wikipedia.Could editors of wikipedia please do something about that embarrassing feel-good article about the Eastern European Dictator (Joseph Broz-the former Yugoslavia). He is portrayed as some sort of pop star and should not be in any nominations other than the article that lacks NPOV. This article is embarrassing considering he was responsible for war crimes,mass massacres, torture & mass imprisonment. One to mention is the Foibe Massacres (there are BBC documentaries). Wikipedia has an article on this so it’s just contradicting itself. You have one feel-good article about a Dictator then you have an article about the Massacres he approved and organized with the Yugoslav Partisan Army. Then there were Death squads in Southern Dalmatia (the Croatians are putting up monuments for the poor victims & their families now). Also it’s important to mention that the Croatian Government is paying compensation to his former victims. Surely a more critical historical article should be written or this present article should be removed altogether. What is next? A Stalin feel-good article? What about the respect towards the poor victims who suffered those awful events? Can the editors please look into this?Sir Floyd (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note guys, this is a sock trying to stir-up trouble. :) He's probably User:Luigi 28, but could be User:Brunodam as well. This message was copy-pasted just about everywhere in an effort to create a fake conflict about a non-existing issue. Considering the barely disguised POV-pushing, there's really little doubt its just another in a long, looong line of socks belonging to one of the so-called "irredentist users". A group of a dozen or so (mostly Italian) POV-pushers that got banned from enWiki for edit-warring, sockpuppeteering, block-evasion, harassment, etc.. They surface now and again to make spiteful edits and insult people.
I'm assuming that this editor is referencing Josip Broz Tito. The article is a former GA candidate from October 2008, but never listed. So this issue does not pertain to WP:GAN currently and the user, sockpuppet or not, is simply canvassing. Best to just ignore it. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Nehrams responded politely but firmly at WT:GAR#Good_Article_Reassessment_NEEDED_For_An_Article_At_lacks_NPOV so I believe this is now a non-issue. Geometry guy 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

LivingBot unreliable

I just tested whether LivingBot would add a new WP:GA to Wikipedia:Good articles/recent‎ if I did not ensure it was added myself. It seems that the bot is not working properly as it did not add Aces and eights (blackjack).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


Is it because of sweeps? It looks like we added about 135 articles this month, which is the least since Nov 2007, not counting the last two months which are even lower. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 11:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are asking, or the point that you are making? Specifically, what does 135 refer to new GAs or new GANs? Pyrotec (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The increase in the number of GAs for August. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I suspect that it is quite difficult to say for definite; but easy to express a personal (if biased) viewpoint. I have passed 11 GANs in August versus 7 in July. I suspect that in respect of Sweeps, my "keeps" and "delists" in August were in balance, and I suspect that in July Sweeps I failed more than I kept. I also do more GAN than Sweeps; but other reviewers will have different ratios; and the difference is the commulative effects of all our efforts. A lot of the 2006 and earlier GAs are now being delisted due to the higher standards required on WP:verify and lack of timely corrective actions. Ignoring GAs that become FAs, net increase in GAs is the difference of what is being added and what is being delisted; and Sweeps is delisting possibly upto 50% of articles. On the submission side, I have also seen some GANs that I was prepared to review in a few days or a week removed; and either taken directly to WP:FAC or nominated for a WP A-class review because the nominator preceived a long wait. I say preceived because one was a Geometry & Places nomination and the wait on these is insignificant compared with say Sports, Music, or Theatre. It would be interesting to get more views on this topic. I'm not a nominator, so my view may well be different. Pyrotec (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It is also partly a seasonal variation: less happens over the northern hemisphere summer. Geometry guy 22:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Summer holidays. Pyrotec (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweeps' effect on GA growth is twofold: 1.) Some of the most prolific GA reviewers have been deeply involved in sweeps lately, which takes effort away from reviewing new GANs. 2.) Since May, the sweeps effort has really picked up pace (though it's slowing off again now). With 2-400 articles reviewed a month, and some 33-50% of these delisted, this is naturally going to affect the net growth of the number of GAs. This means that under normal circumstances, you could probably add some 1-200 articles to the monthly growth, so the number isn't really all that depressing.

Still, the backlog is getting serious now, and might be staring to have a demoralising effect on editors. A backlog drive would be helpful, but there is little point in doing this before the sweeps effort is done. The good news is that there are only some 450 articles left to review, of the original 2,800 (there were almost 1,500 in April). With some help from experienced reviewers, and a final push, we could probably get this done in one or two months. Lampman (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

Progress through August

GA Sweeps has over 400 articles left to review. If you have not contributed to Sweeps yet, now is your chance to help review the remaining articles so that existing Sweeps reviewers can return to fully focus on GAN (instead of splitting between the two as some reviewers have done). Choose whichever articles you are interested in as there are articles available on a variety of topics and of varying lengths. Awards are available at the conclusion of the drive for excellent reviews. If you have any questions, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How many were completed in August? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Take a look here. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 05:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Classification of St Andrew's (stadium)

I just passed this article, which was nominated under the "sports and recreation" subheading. There doesn't seem to be a heading appropriate to it on this page under "everyday life." Should it go under "Arts" and "architecture?" Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You could, but there is a stadium (Arsenal Stadium) in "sports and recreation" under the "Association football teams and events" sub-subheading. Pyrotec (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 03:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Classification of Aki Toyosaki

I just passed Aki Toyosaki. Does it belong under "Performers, groups, composers and other music people" or under "Actors, models, performers and celebrities"? Goodraise 06:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The latter, as her work as a musician is very recent, and hence not the primary source of the article's notability. Geometry guy 19:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Goodraise 19:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

GA history

Anyone know why originally the GAs were mostly transportation articles?[1] Just curious. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Back then anyone could just pick an article and call it a GA if they believed it met the criteria; I don't believe there was a nomination process. It could have been that one or more of the project members went through all of their articles and tagged the ones that most likely met the criteria. As a result, a larger selection of articles related to that topic were selected than from other topics. I'm just guessing that's the case though. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Darn, I missed it. I could have written tons of GAs in a few months! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
You still can, it's just the GAN backlog that's going to slow you down. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 03:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I actually remember "those days"! The reason was twofold. (1) It was felt that many articles failed FA not because they were lacking in quality, but because they were short, yet the topic was too narrow to justify a longer article. The original aim of GA (by User:Worldtraveller) was to provide recognition for these "short but good" articles (2) One of the original GA people (User:Slambo, who is still active and may comment here) was involved in writing and reviewing railway articles. Many articles on railway engines were very good but short, and it was felt that the new GA project would allow some of these "hidden gems" to be seen. I read some of the train articles at that time - they really were good, it wasn't a case of someone tagging them for the sake of it, as that would have completely undermined the credibility of the project. Walkerma (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Essay on deleting Good and Featured articles

I've written an essay on how to handle deletion discussions of good and featured articles. Your input and edits are welcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

(1) Khoo Kheng-Hor -- Article was listed as a GA in August 2008, but the article itself appears to be completely orphaned. Is this a problem with regard to it's GA status?

Not really, it can remain as a GA for as long as it is compliant with WP:WIAGA. Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(2) William Monahan -- Article was listed as a GA in March 2007, and has since been promoted and demoted from FA status. Is the original GA listing still valid, or should the project assessments be changed to B-Class? PC78 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it needs to be resubmited to WP:GAN. However, I see that it is currently marked as GA, but someone has raised a WP:GAR; I suggest that you don't make any changes yet, wait for the results of the GAR. Pyrotec (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
It was me who tagged the talk page with {{GA request}}, if that's what you refer to. I did that in order to clarify it's status (what I asked above, basically), but if the answer is no then I should be OK to reassess it, yes? PC78 (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I did not check who did what: yes it was you. Please be aware that the template that you added leads here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Provided that you have not contributed significantly to the article you can do a reassessment (and the Article History will then get marked up as a GAR "keep" or "delist"). When the article was delisted as a FA it should realy have gone back to B-class and then been nominated for GA review WP:Good article nomination, but that did not happen. Pyrotec (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
If I understand your initial comment correctly, the article is not a GA so reassessment is unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's start again, I should have checked everthing before replying. From the Article History, the article failed FA on 21 May 2009. For most WP's it was reclassed as A-class; and on 16 June 2009 an editor (incorrectly) changed the various project ratings to GA. The article was not submitted to WP:GAN after being delisted as FA so it is not a GA-class article. Strictly, WP-projects should not be using GA-ratings for this article. It is not a GA-class article so it does not need a GA-reasssessment. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Following on from that, I'll ask a third question that I didn't think needed a new section.

(3) Does the fact that the subject of an article is about an ongoing event preclude it from becoming a good article? There's no edit war or content dispute in the article I'm considering nominating, it's just that new content will (uncontroversially) be added as 2009 and 2010 progress. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

From WP:Reviewing good articles#First things to look for:
  • 5 The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. This would indicate that it would preclude such an artcile being a GA, I guess it is just common ense anyway. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


At what point does a new subsection for GA's emerge? WP:CYCLING now has ten Good Articles, up from the four it had for the first three or so years of its existence. This is comparable to other subsections in the "Everyday life" category, and quite a bit more than "Sports mascots and supporters" and "Poker." So can we have "Cycling" as a separate subsection? They're only "Miscellaneous sport" right now because there isn't a cycling section. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 06:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


The article for comic-book and comic-strip artist Al Williamson just achieved Good Article status. What is the protocol for adding it to the page, and to the "Recently added" list? -- Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That is the reviewer's responsibility, although in respect of the recently added list a bot will do it: both actions have already been done. Pyrotec (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

GA approved by sock of a banned user

Nasty case here. A GA nom. has been approved by an account that turns out to be a sock of a banned user. By rights, the nom. should be redone IMHO. The sock didn't give any feedback anyway at Talk:Rex Shelley/GA1. The last time I nominated a GA, I got grilled like crazy so a one-line pass seems inappropriate. Thoughts? Wknight94 talk 22:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Wknight94. I was just familiarizing myself with the various related pages, after seeing the removal of an unreviewed one they'd nom'd from WP:GAN, when you posted this. :) I'll take a look & comment back here in say twentyish mins? –Whitehorse1 22:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmph, looks like the same sock has been busy at GA: [2]. Same question for those I guess. Wknight94 talk 22:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This took longer than 20mins as there was so much to look through, plus related discussion is in multiple places onsite. Okay, of their unreviewed GA noms, they've either been de-nom'd or otherwise marked clearly in case others wish to assist.
Now to turn to articles they'd worked on that previously attained GA status. On one, "The Snowman", all seems, with best endeavors, to check out. Existence of its sources are verified through worldcat/gbooks, and gbook searches on those using selected key words from cited text confirmed they back up the cited content. A prev. discussion saw another project member get hold of the sources used in another of their articles, to find they supported everything claimed, and who went on to say there "there's no obvious cause for concern about the other GAs nominated by this editor". Those listed that went through or onto FA have already undergone particularly close scrutiny.
Regarding the article they reviewed, Rex Shelley, I've read and reviewed it. It complies with all criteria. I'd have passed it. Other candidates of their completed reviews have since become featured content, themselves show in-depth review, or were nominated or worked on by very experienced GA reviewers. –Whitehorse1 03:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, dear. I'm the creator of the article in question. Well, I have no objection if you send the article for a GA review. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I started a new section on this subject in general at WP:ANI#ItsLassieTime banned or not? Wknight94 talk 18:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This one is not GA status - it's still under review - although Kathyrn had requested a second opinion - and an editor has responded - I responded to his suggestions - so I'm waiting for that editor's feedback.--Scott Free (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It turns out that the second reviewer has gone to Air Force training and is therefore on a Wikibreak. So I guess that editor won't be able to close the review after all. I guess the best thing would be put it back up on the GAC shelf--Scott Free (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll take over the review. –Whitehorse1 19:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi - am I to understand that a sockpuppet nominated an article I created for GA status? All I care is that the article is good; I'm not interested in its status. I am fairly cynical about the process by which WP articles are awarded status and am of the opinion that it only really matters to heavy WP contributors and admins - most users don't care what status an article has, as long as it's accurate. If anyone wants to downgrade an article I've worked on because someone dodgy has secured or is attempting to secure for it a higher status, fine with me. Do what you like. Lexo (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Nope, it's sorta the reverse of that. The reviewer account fits that category. The nominator, was Ottava, who nominated it having worked on it, and isn't a 'sock'. The review and article itself are fine in any event. –Whitehorse1 19:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

--Caspian blue 17:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also approved of the GA status of some of Kathyrn's articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
While I feel the article is GA, I'm fine with the GA being negated on The Fox and the Hound and all the rest she randomly approved. I'd forgot she'd done it, but it was one reason she came to my attention now that I think back on it. Be curious as to how many more of those passes were for editors involved in their previous blockings. However, I think the GA reviews should be totally negated and the articles all returned to the queue (basically, revert her passes to put back as noms and speedy delete the GA discussion pages she created), just any other sock contributions. This way the articles (and their editors) are not incorrectly considered a demoted GA. The other option would be for someone to step up and do GARs on them all, but that would require much more editorial effort. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
GARs would probably be more appropriate as it would provide more evidence if there was a problem or if there wasn't one in the specific reviews. Then you can compare them with other factors and see if there was a trend. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Have just come online now today. I see there's been a hive of activity related to this! Please would all above hold fire on opening GARs, notifying people, reversions, etc., for now? Meanwhile I'll look closely at the various parts and comment back here today. That's just a request of course, but as I'm going return and comment on this *today*, my hope is y'all will consider a reasonable one. Thank you kindly. –Whitehorse1 18:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Heya, since my name is up there, I know I wasn't too pleased with the review, but I did also notice this "sock" brought errors into my article that I had to go fix. I don't wanna sacrifice a GA for what was my first church article, but i would appreciate if someone would be interested in a backup peer review.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 18:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Coles/Cliffs Notes version: The 6 reviews/articles are fine. I checked them. –Whitehorse1 12:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort. I hope there aren't any other objections. — Cheers, JackLee talk 14:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I think, for transparency and so that its clear to anyone looking later that the articles are good, that individual GARs, at min, should be done, much like if they were being swept for sweeps. Or a note added to the original GA reviews noting the issue with the sock, that it was discussed, the article rereviewed, and the GA passing is upheld. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Good points, well made. I made a start on something like this yesterday. I like the 2nd suggestion best. –Whitehorse1 15:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Merit badge symbol

I'm sure the idea of putting an icon on a page (similar to the FA icon) to mark it as a good article has been discussed in here before. But I had this thought that it would be a nice addition to give those pages a small merit badge. I.e. a circular icon with a symbol representing the broad category. Thus you could have, say, the common atom symbol with three twirling electrons for chemistry. (Although the icon would be small, so maybe a flask would work better?) That can then be linked back to the GA page. It would provide an indicator that the page has achieved some level of recognition for its quality, as well possibly encourage more GA volunteers. What do you think?—RJH (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I like the idea. GA has improved greatly and is a great way of processing and improving larger numbers of articles. Also, standards at FA almost require GA as a middle step - it serves as a good Peer Review and waystation for editor fatigue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Discussion should wait at least until Sweeps has been completed. Only a couple hundred articles left. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 04:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Does that means FAs stars should be hidden until all old FAs are reassessed? :-) --Philcha (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
No that means I'm still trying to get as many volunteers as possible to complete a 2+ year reassessment process. I guess I enjoy trying every time a new GA-related discussion starts. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 07:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that there have apparently been several discussions about this, one of which is here. I started to wade into this one time as well, but backed off after seeing the massive discussion. Proceed with caution. Acdixon (talk contribs count) 21:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What planet was here from? The reasoning was more obcsure than the prose, which was more obcsure than the reasoning, which ... --Philcha (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I think I've got it: "Along with that problem is the bigger philosophical issue of what the Wikipedia all about. But on a philosophical level, we should focus on an even bigger issue, namely, what is the meaning of life, the universe and everything? I suggest trying to tackle the big issue first." Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The main reasoning behind not having a symbol is or has been in the various discussions that at its best (and even worst), FAC garuantees a handful of Wikipedians felt it meet criteria. Good article reviews as we know can be better than an FA review and at worst a spurious or careless pass. In terms of what we are presenting and "getting behind" as a community, FA holds more presentable weight and "respectability". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think displaying a merit badge symbol on GA article pages is entirely logical and appropriate. I've wondered in the past why we don't have them. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
David Fuchs, you can scratch the part of "spurious or careless pass" once we completed the sweeps. Incidences of "careless pass" are dropping to record-low due to more eyes on GAN page and I'm confident to say that we've caught 99% of those "careless pass". No process is fool-proof and I daresay that some FAs listed aren't even good enough to be GAs. So for now, let's just wait for sweeps to finish. If you're looking for something to do, why not help the sweeps? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that once the substandard articles from way back when have been weeded out, a new GA-symbol discussion discussion is appropriate. I haven't been sweeping much myself lately, but I'll try to pitch in a bit now that we're on the home stretch. Lampman (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

VPP discussion

There is a question at WP:VPP that it would be good if someone involved here would weigh in on. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Can a delisted featured article still be a good article?.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom election reminder

Dear colleagues

This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday 14 December to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.

On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Reconciling list of good articles to talk page project designations?

I just found an article, Wallachia, where the article had been downgraded to B-class on its talk page in October 2007 but not at wp:GA, is there any automated way of reconciling the wp:Good Articles list to talk page project designations? Tom B (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that the article was delisted as a GA a while ago, but the delisting had not been properly done, and that you've fixed it now. The list of GAs is automatically updated; I think it's GimmeBot that does this. But this has to follow the GA listings on the talk pages, not the project classes, because the GA class overrules project classes when the two disagree. That was why the article remained listed even after it had failed a GA review. The problem with cases like this, where the GA status is in error, is that the bot won't catch it. Maybe a bot could search for cases where there's discrepancy between the GA status and project status? Lampman (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thanks, i left a note with the bot operator Tom B (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


I just passed the article Sociology as GA. When I came to update WP:Good articles, I found no section to correspond with the Sociology section of WP:GAN so I was bold and added one. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Progress as of December 2009

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. When Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Military and Naval Museums/Memorials

I've added this category to the military history section to accommodate the Red Tail Project which I've just promoted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow good articles on Twitter!

Whenever a good article is approved for listing, it will now be posted on Twitter by @wikiarticles. @harej 19:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Count maintenance

Last time I passed a GA, I had to go and change the count manually. I can't see the instruction telling me to do so any more. Is this all done automatically now?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so, I always update manually. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The total number of GAs is computed from the good articles category. The number of GAs in each section is updated automatically about once or twice a week. Geometry guy 21:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks both--Peter cohen (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another GA Sweeps update

Progress as of January 2010

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! We are open to any new members who would like to help us complete the remaining articles, so if you're interested in helping, please see the main page. If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you guys have to be sick of seeing these updates by now. Again, when Sweeps is completed, more reviewers will be able to spend time in reviewing GANs to assist with the backlog. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 02:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Lech Wałęsa

Lech Wałęsa was recently listed as GA. However, it doesn't seem to meet GA criteria and the nomination process also seems dubious. The article is poorly written with obvious typos, so it hasn't been even copy-edited; the coverage is scant for a bio of a person of this importance, lots of trivia instead; also POV issues (eg., "exemplified by his disastrous performance in the pre-election television debate, where he came off as incoherent and rude"). The article doesn't seem to have ever been listed on WP:GAN and there was no real review either. Reviewer's only comment was, "This article is verifiable, well written, neutral, etc. I'm passing it as a GA." Apparently, the nomination was sent to the reviewer by email by a blocked editor who worked around the ban by writing the article on his userpage in Polish Wikipedia and having someone copy-paste it to English Wikipedia. I'm not sure what to do with this case. — Kpalion(talk) 19:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, this process was approved by Arbcom. I asked the reviewer to publish his correspondence with the nominator on the article's talkpage. — Kpalion(talk) 20:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec'd) Hi, thank you for posting. Feel free to help with copyediting or any other improvements you think are needed. This article improvement drive is an unusual situation: Wikipedia's most prolific contributor of featured articles about Poland is currently blocked due to reasons unrelated to Lech Walesa. This improvement drive has been undertaken by proxy with the full advance knowledge and permission of the Arbitration Committee. If you need verification on the procedural side please follow up at my user talk. Durova409 20:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I put the email contents on Talk:Lech Wałęsa/GA1. It's kind of a mess, but the review is there. I think I took out all the personal/non wiki info, but if you see and more, please remove it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
So why was this not nominated at GAN in the usual manner, by a proxy if neccessary? The article should probably be nominated for re-assessment at GAR. The views section is somehwat dubious . I don't see anything in the Arbcom ruling that says it is OK to bypass the usual GA processes. The fact that the banned user has entered the Wiki cup is irrelevant and should not lead to any special treatment, in my6 opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Put it up for GAR if you want. I'm not sure what being on GAN would have achieved, since it's a way of pairing reviewers and reviewees, which was done by email in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:GAR seems a sensible solution. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Seven (2002)

Hi all. I'm planning on eventually merging Tropical Depression Seven (2002) to another article with the consent of its author, but since it's a GA, I'm wondering how to delist it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Julian, delisting usually occurs by means of good article reassessment, so I could reassess and list as B. It looks like itn barely meets the notability requirement as you say and the only sources are some kind of bulletin board postings by hurricane centre forecasters. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, alright. What's the usual method for summarily reassessing a GA? –Juliancolton | Talk 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, how about copying {{GAR/link}} onto the top of the article's talkpage (but without the "tl|". Once you've done that it should be self evident what is needed; but if, not come back. Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Summary reassessment is an individual reassessment without a hold (rather like a GAN review without a hold). {{subst:GAR}} on article talk, follow the link to the individual reassessment page, leave a review explaining why the article does not meet the criteria, and delist. Geometry guy 19:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Good article symbol

I'm sure this question is answered somewhere in the archives, but I don't really have time to look so I'm just going to ask the question. Why isn't the good article symbol displayed in the upper right corner of a good article the same way as the featured article star is displayed in the upper right corner of a featured article? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out this discussion for the last (I think) comments on the topic, which links in one of the first couple of comments to a huge 2008 discussion on this very topic. If you want to restart the discussion, be my guest, but it basically started a lot of drama with no (or almost no) results in 2008. For future knowledge, there is a search feature for the archives on many highly-frequented pages like this one - just type in what you're searching for and it will usually bring it up without having to spend a lot of time looking. Dana boomer (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Now the sweeps are done, I was thinking this might be a good time to restart discussions on a little symbol on the article page. I am getting keener on this idea of showing the readership at large that these articles have been vetted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

But how can we generate discussion without degrading it into an all-out GA vs. FA matter? I don't get why of all language projects, only GA and FA projects in English Wikipedia can't live in harmony. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Those days are over. I have seen very little such disharmony in the last year. Please do not continue to promote it. Geometry guy 22:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the time for another such discussion is soon. I think we need to discuss within the project for a week or two, then open an RfC in neutral forum for broader community input. Geometry guy 22:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Should we also consider a symbol for A-class? --Philcha (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes I think that is good too. I am thinking more and more we need to promote to the outside world how we vet ourselves and what we are doing to ensure reliablility. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I am firmly against, and always have been, muddying the waters by including WikiProject assessments. These are entirely for WikiProject editors (and WP1.0) to track progress, and do not have the same community wide status as FA. GA is community wide, but will still be challenged regarding its reliability, and rightly so. A GA-dot will succeed only if it is deemed more useful to readers than it might be unhelpful. Geometry guy 23:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I would separate out the proposals for sure. Agree on the need for utility to be demonstrated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I strongly support everything Casliber has said. I'm looking forward to this RfC for these reasons. From my experiences in the real world, many people I've shared my FA lemurs pages with were completely unaware that there was any such vetting on Wiki, but things got confusing when they started giving quick glances to at my GA pages and the other B-class lemur articles I have hardly touched. Being able to distinguish FA, A, and GA would be very valuable, especially if it could somehow promote better understanding of our vetting process for the public. I realize there are quality control issues with the GA process, but this can be addressed. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Before embarking on such a discussion I think there are a few things we could do to make sure our own house is in order:

  • Now that sweeps is over, another article elimination drive might be a good idea. There are currently over 400 outstanding nominations, and the long wait for a review is probably getting demoralising on nominators. Many of us reviewers who have focused on sweeps lately should now be free to do a few GANs.
  • Update the charts on the statistics page to show the extent and development of the project; Geometry guy, you're the expert here...
  • Split up Wikipedia:Good articles; at over 360k it takes a long time to load even on a fast connection. There are certain issues that will have to be dealt with here, for instance how to divide the page ("Arts" is enormous, while "Mathematics" is practically empty.) Also, we have to make sure the review templates etc. direct to the proper pages. Lampman (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with keeping such discussion focused on GAs, not wikiproject classifications.
I don't understand why WP puts problem tags on articles but outside of the featured items does little or nothing to help readers see or find good material. Maurreen (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I support this in principle, for the reasons mentioned, but I think we would need to make it clearer to people who are not as familiar with the assessment procedures that a + symbol is "Good" and a * means "Best". The standards for GAs are not as high as for FAs, of course, and the procedures for checking every fact and specific aspect are not as rigorous. It needs to be blatantly obvious that an FA is better, as with a GA, while everything should be verifiable, as there is only one reviewer, certain errors or problems may not be picked up, especially if the rest of the article seems good. However, showing people that GAs have been vetted and can be trusted more than other articles seems to be a good thing, as the main difference between a GA and an FA appears to be the standard of writing and the breadth of coverage, rather than its accuracy. Jhbuk (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
On the topic of the symbols, I've wondered in the past why a green cross denotes vetted as good, compared with the gold (well, bronze) star to denote vetted as featured/best – a more universally understood 'excellent work' symbol.
The French equivalent Bons contenus has a silver star, with a comparable golden star for their Contenus de qualité featured equivalent. –Whitehorse1 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
All other language projects but English place their GA symbol in mainspace. The FA project in here don't want any one else to steal their thunder, even if that project promotes improving the quality of articles. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I vote for GA symbols on GA-awarded pages and GA articles on the mainspace. It's time to get symbols on the GA articles and to give them a mention somewhere on the mainspace. They've been vetted, they're ready for the limelight, and any attempt to draw attention to them can only be a good thing. Their quality is frequently fantastic. The silver star and gold star scheme (per Whitehourse above) sounds like a good idea too. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Though I agree with you, I think a vote is a bit premature at this point. Are we starting an RfC any time soon? Lampman (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm also with you on this point, but changing the GA "+ symbol" into a silver star should be considered separately. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I remember it was pulling teeth to just even get the FA star on the top right of the page and also the tiny FA star at the interwiki links. I will come up with a silver star for the GA icon (but I personally like my drawing of the GA symbol that is being used everywhere now). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a reasonable amount of agreement that there could be some sort of symbol on GA pages here (even if it is the talk page of the GA area), so what do people think about going further with it? Jhbuk (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Go for it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Zscout370, I'm confused. I figured (if we did switch to a star) we would just use the above-linked silver star that the french-wp use, to save us reinventing the wheel? –Whitehorse1 19:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of something different to a star - one of the wikiprojects has what looks like a green seal with a stamped '+' on it, which I think is nice and low-key yet marks the article as having been, like, 'stamped' for approval and ready to 'go' (hence green). Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Like this Symbol support vote.svg, maybe? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Took me a while - but I meant something moer like [[found it --> Quality images logo.svg but smaller obviously Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I like a star more myself. I think the green + symbol works well in discussion votes sometimes though; maybe it's a brand image thing, diluted by multiple uses in the project. It's recognizable from appearing on the talkpage templates of Listed good articles, and any number of wikiprojects use the {{Classicon|GA}} to display it as Jezza shows; perhaps less obvious to newbies though. –Whitehorse1 19:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with starting an RfC then? Jhbuk (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we confident that the RfC won't turn into "we love GA" vs. "we hate GA" popularity contest? OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see an RFC, but it might ought to be planned first. Too many RFCs degenerate. For instance, maybe we could compile reasons on both sides. Maurreen (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely, I didn't mean immediately; I just want to keep the discussion focused on this, where it may actully be constructive, rather than wandering around and just being forgotten about in the end. Jhbuk (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's a pretty good summary of the pros and cons as they were presented in the last discussion. Some of the cons have been addressed through sweeps and the introduction of review subpages, others cannot be addressed without violating the basic principles of the project. Lampman (talk) 03:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. I agree with your suggestion above about ensuring the house is in order. (I've had little involvement with GA.) Should we consider a to-do list or a subpage? Maurreen (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
RfC sounds good to me. As the project's matured and the sweeps program has concluded, many past concerns expressed have been addressed I think. I've had the article quality assessment gadget enabled a while now, and I'm used to seeing the grades. The difference between that and a symbol icon doesn't seem high cost. I've put a mockup here of how it'd look if implemented. A featured article when the gadget's enabled looks much the same as when logged out, only without the blue colored title & 'a featured article' wording underneath it. Some planning seems smart. Either a to-do list or subpage/combo should work. –Whitehorse1 19:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this type of box is really useful to dissect arguments into smaller, manageable sizes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Categorising castles

Browsing the list, I noticed that castles (ie. medieval military structures) are variously categorised: many (most?) under arts as "architecture"; some under history as "archeology", and a good number under war & military as "Weapons, military equipment and buildings". It would be more sensible to list these together in one place (or at least, encourage it). But which? Gwinva (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just castles, there are many other confusing categories and they don't fully match the WP:GA categories. But it will never be perfect, I guess. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
"Weapons, military equipment and buildings" seems like the most logical choice to me. I'd say just be bold. Lampman (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed this too - I think a "Military structures" section would be a good idea (although remember that in Britain stately homes are often called castles even though they have no military function).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notifacation Of Proposal To Promote wp:quote

There is a proposal to promote wp:quote.

I do not know why candidates was notified, but they were so you should be notified as well. (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Putting work on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries on the main page

There a lot of FA/GAs around, and many of these can be used on the main page on selected anniversaries. Many FA/GAs can be, but at the moment, SA is not well-known and has no selection process; unlike DYK and ITN, you can just turn up and serve yourself. This is leading to lots of unsourced, messed-up articles getting on the main page. One admin Ragib (talk · contribs) has been reverting an article he contributed to, Operation Searchlight, which has lots of references of officers involved in the war/battle, citing WP:OTHERCRAP. Anyone with a FA or GA with a relevant date, you can get yourself 5000 hits for the day, and the article can go on there each year, unlike TFA and DYK, and raise the standard of material on the front page as well to make Wikipedia less of a joke, there are many unused articles that are far better than unsourced and unvetted and self-addable start class articles going around on the front page YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Breakup of another subsection in the sports articles.

We may need to create Winter Sports (non ice hockey) subsection in the Sports and Recreation article. I see at least four names that could qualify. Apollo Ohno, Kimmie Meisner, Magdalena Neuner, and the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2009. Thoughts on this? Chris (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

List of unlisted articles

Hi guys, I've used AWB to generate a list of articles that are in Category:Wikipedia good articles but not on this page. Most if not all of them are simply not listed on WP:GA when they should be. I don't have time to add all these to the page myself so it'd be good if others could help me. Just click the show below, and I'd suggest we can work together, crossing them out as you go :) rst20xx (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Unlisted GAs:

done so far. Whisky drinker
Talk to HJ 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. Talk:Action of 9 July 1806
  2. Talk:Al Jean
  3. Talk:Apt Pupil (film)
  4. Talk:Bad (album)
  5. Talk:Battle of Schliengen
  6. Talk:Battle of Unsan
  7. Talk:Beatlemania in the United Kingdom
  8. Talk:Bill Bradley
  9. Talk:Black Hawk War
  10. Talk:Boletus mirabilis
  11. Talk:Breaker boy
  12. Talk:Butters' Bottom Bitch
  13. Talk:Christ myth theory
  14. Talk:Christmas truce
  15. Talk:Civilian Public Service
  16. Talk:Cliff Compton
  17. Talk:Cookiecutter shark
  18. Talk:D.C. United
  19. Talk:Dancin' Homer
  20. Talk:Death (South Park)
  21. Talk:Deuce 'n Domino
  22. Talk:Doctor Who campfire trailer
  23. Talk:Don Chafin
  24. Talk:Dorian Holley
  25. Talk:Exploration of Jupiter
  26. Talk:Florida class battleship
  27. Talk:Friedrich Joseph, Count of Nauendorf
  28. Talk:Gal Vihara
  29. Talk:Gilbert Thomas Carter
  30. Talk:Gojira (band)
  31. Talk:Heart-Shaped Box
  32. Talk:I'm Just Wild About Harry
  33. Talk:I Not Stupid Too
  34. Talk:Interstate 676
  35. Talk:It's About Time! (Phineas and Ferb)
  36. Talk:James Meredith (footballer)
  37. Talk:Joan of Arc (poem)
  38. Talk:John Kourkouas
  39. Talk:King Crimson
  40. Talk:Launch Party
  41. Talk:Leicester City F.C.
  42. Talk:LG Mobile World Cup
  43. Talk:Limyra Bridge
  44. Talk:Live at Red Rocks: Under a Blood Red Sky
  45. Talk:Macropsia
  46. Talk:Madoc (poem)
  47. Talk:Minnesota Timberwolves failed relocation to New Orleans
  48. Talk:Missy Higgins
  49. Talk:Mo Tae-Bum
  50. Talk:New Jersey Route 124
  51. Talk:Oh! How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning
  52. Talk:Order of Saint Hubert (Bavarian)
  53. Talk:Osteitis fibrosa cystica
  54. Talk:P.Y.T. (Pretty Young Thing)
  55. Talk:Personal relationships of Michael Jackson
  56. Talk:Petlyakov Pe-3
  57. Talk:Pholiota flammans
  58. Talk:Post Oak Mall
  59. Talk:PS Washington Irving
  60. Talk:Qedarite
  61. Talk:Quatermass 2
  62. Talk:Rajasaurus

Whisky drinker | Talk to HJ 00:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. Talk:Ralph de Luffa
  2. Talk:Robert Peverell Hichens
  3. Talk:Russula virescens
  4. Talk:Sam & Max Save the World
  5. Talk:Seltaeb
  6. Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (637)
  7. Talk:Star Wars: Jedi Knight (series)
  8. Talk:Summerteeth
  9. Talk:Taylor Swift (album)
  10. Talk:The Final Fantasy Legend
  11. Talk:The Last Castle
  12. Talk:The Legacy (professional wrestling)
  13. Talk:The Legend of Zelda (video game)
  14. Talk:The Quatermass Xperiment
  15. Talk:Three Men and a Comic Book
  16. Talk:Time Gal
  17. Talk:TWA Flight 159
  18. Talk:Tylopilus plumbeoviolaceus
  19. Talk:W.T.F.
  20. Talk:Wandsworth Bridge
  21. Talk:Whale Whores
  22. Talk:YouTube

Interesting. Could you tell us how you did it? I haven't used AWB before, but this seems like a useful trick. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I got it to generate a list of pages in the aforementioned category, and a list of links on WP:GA, took out the project links from the latter, converted the latter to talk pages then subtracted the latter from the former to leave the difference - rst20xx (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
unable to list
  1. Talk:Michael Scott Paper Company (The Office) (talk page is in the wrong place)
  2. Talk:Opium (under GAR)

it would be appreciated if anybody could list it or has any ideas! Whisky drinker | Talk to HJ 01:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've managed to do most of them but now I really need some sleep. it would be great if someone else could sort the last 20 odd. Whisky drinker | Talk to HJ 02:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic! Michael Scott Paper Company, the page was clearly moved at some point so that's easy to fix. Opium may be at GAR but should still be listed in the meantime. Really nice effort, HJ - rst20xx (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm guessing someone forgot to tick the "move associated talk page" button. Remind me to trout them when I find out who it was. As for the last few, if they're not done later when I get back, I'll do them but I don't have time right now. I was looking for a pattern, for example in the GA reviewers but there wasn't one that I could and one of them was one I reviewed so I guess it's just slips people's minds. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Done the last 19. Good work, everyone who helped out - rst20xx (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There are more:

Gimmetrow 00:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Pitfalls of a GAN backlog elimination drive! rst20xx (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Double listing

I just found that Kimberella was listed under two sections on this page. Perhaps someone can check whether there are more articles for which this is the case? Ucucha 20:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this can be done using AWB's list of articles that are linked more than once on a page. Can anyone give a run through with the tool? I found Gojira and Gojira (band) listed next to each other. Mm40 (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't see that you can do that. You can't check for redirects on a page either I don't think (which would also be useful) - rst20xx (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there is a redirect-redirecting script (which I have found very useful). It can be found here. I'm pretty sure AWB has a multiple links function, but I'll try to boot it at some point to make sure. Mm40 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I have the preference enabled that marks links to redirects a different color; I am now fixing all redirects. I also noticed that European Council was double-listed and removed one listing. Ucucha 02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with listing an article in different, relevant sections. Redirects from alternate names are resolved by the bot. Gimmetrow 00:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

Does the existence of dead links within a Good article subject that article to delisting? I recently noticed that a Good article was delisted months ago because the reviewer noted that the article contained dead links within the article's references (7 links within 116 references). I was a bit surprised by this delisting, as online sourcing has never been a requirement, and wondered if this has changed. Do GA regulars agree that an article should not remain a GA if links rot? For the record, I am not a contributor to the article in question and have not contacted the reviewer; the overall situation is what interests me, not the specific one. --auburnpilot talk 01:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall, just a few deadlinks (especially 7/116) shouldn't really be a reason to delist the article. If that is really the only problem, the reviewer really should just fix the links themselves, as it would probably take less time then doing an entire GA delisting process. On the specific question of linkrot in GAs, if a link is mainly a convenience link to something that was also distributed offline (say an article in TIME or the New York Times), then a dead link is not a big problem and can simply be removed if it cannot be replaced. However, if the link was to a source that was solely online and is no longer available anywhere now that the link is dead, then a new reference needs to be found. Dana boomer (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest User:Philcha#Links_that_have_died to see if you can access backups of the dead links - I've found it very useful. --Philcha (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The links were no longer functional because the website changed its web address; something I think should have been checked by the reviewer. Either way, and as I said, I was more interested in the idea of what happened than the specific case and have renominated the article on behalf of the original nominator. Best, --auburnpilot talk 05:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC on merging Words to avoid into Words to watch

Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. As people here tend to have an interest in the MoS, there's a proposal to merge several pages as part of a streamlining project. One part of the proposal is to merge Words to avoid, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Avoid neologisms into a new page, Words to watch (W2W). Fresh input would be appreciated at the RfC. SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

New proposal on promoting reader understanding of assessment processes

I have made a proposal at WT:ASSESS that is somewhat related to the issue of the FA star (and the desire for a GA icon). It looks at a broader issue by focusing more on helping readers understand our assessment system, rather than just focusing on recognizing quality content. Feedback, positive or negative, is strongly encouraged. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Good article template

Consensus has been reached to use the template:

Please feel free to add it to all WP:GA rated articles, in the same manner of placement used as {{featured article}}. Thanks for all of your quality improvement work! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to set a bot to update the articles and add the template on a regular basis, starting with a mass run to update all of the current articles? Imzadi 1979  15:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone is doing it now with AWB. A bot should be setup in the near future to do it for future GAs, though. Gary King (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
It's supposed to go at the bottom of the page though, not the top. AnemoneProjectors 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if we should have a description on how to put the template on a newly granted GA-status article on Wikipedia:Good article nominations. As of now there os non. So some newly granted GA status article might not get the new template on the front page immediatly by the closing user.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I mean more specifily the Pass part of the article. For closing users to give the newly GA-status article the new tmeplate it deserves.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I thinbk these changed to the Pass secton needs to be done asap.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot needed.......

I realised that a bot is needed to upkeep the job of adding and removing {{good article}} to good articles, and in the latter case, former good articles. I've been doing a lot of work regarding this point, but there are thousands of GAs. Thanks Sp33dyphil (Talk) (Contributions) 07:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I added it to the articles I had something to do with. Should I not have done that? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that's fine, just fewer articles for the bot to do. Imzadi 1979  03:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 36#GA symbol; the GA people there say that most of the articles have been tagged using AWB. Nevertheless, I have offered to make/run an AWB bot that would periodically check/update the Good article with {{Good article}}. Thoughts on this matter should be shared at that page, in the interest of centralized discussion. Thanks, Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 02:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I have filed a Bot Request for Approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Good Article Patrol Bot. Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 03:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Icon

Why does the green icon [3] appear on SOME good articles and not others? It would make more sense if there was a bot or something that gave {{good article}} to every good article. InMooseWeTrust (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the bot is working on it. I know GAs that I watchlist have been periodically popping up as having the icon added over the past few days. This icon was only recently implemented on the article page, however, and with over 5,000 GAs it is moving rather slowly (I assume due to edit-per-minute limitations) in adding it to every article. Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not like the green icon. It is unaesthetic. It looks worse than having no icon there. A check mark would look better and not as good as the star, so it be would more appropriate. Why is the support vote icon used to decorate a good article? It has no "good article" meaning. A circle with a cross inside has no real meaning but to look like a Eucharist or a wheel with broken spokes.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma)
People misused good article symbol for support vote icon OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, not quite: File:Symbol support vote.png predates the start of GA (in October 2005) by several months. The support vote symbol for GAs was introduced a few days after it began, in this discussion. Over the last 4+ years, the symbol has become closely associated with the GA process, and suggestions to replace it with something else are widely opposed, recently here for example.
I can only speculate as to why it was chosen and has endured. The symbol has become a logo, and part of GA's cultural identity. Initially, it represented the fact that GA status was a vote of approval by a single editor. The tilted plus is also a bit quirky: a quality benchmark that any editor can apply seems as crazy as an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but amazingly it seems to work most of the time.
Like all iconography, the symbol has meaning, but the full meaning is not obvious, especially to the uninitiated – and maybe that is a good thing. Geometry guy 19:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
A good article icon needs to be an icon that looks good on articles. A featured article icon need to be an icon that is featured on articles.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 19:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Er, why? Those aren't the meanings of 'good' or of 'featured' that either symbol is intended to indicate. All either symbol needs to do is be easily identifiable and (ideally) give some indication of quality. I don't think the GA symbol really does the latter, unlike the FA star. Gold vs silver or bronze stars might be better for that. However, the GA symbol's been around for such a long time that (as GG points out) it has its own (appropriate) associations and changing it would cause confusion and waste much time and effort. Appropriately, it does a good enough job as it is. 4u1e (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
"All either symbol needs to do is be easily identifiable and (ideally) give some indication of quality. I don't think the GA symbol really does the latter, unlike the FA star." "However, the GA symbol's been around for such a long time that (as GG points out) it has its own (appropriate) associations and changing it would cause confusion and waste much time and effort." If the symbol doesn't do what it needs to do, it is wasting time.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 20:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
These are just all opinions, so here's mine - it looks just fine and does what it needs to do - tell you that the article is a Good Article. Airplaneman Review? 07:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


User:Risker has blocked User:Xtzou (a GA reviewer) as a sock of a blocked account. This is a problem for me as Xtzou was my GA Reviewer. Since he has been blocked as a sock, does that void my GA article's review? - NeutralHomerTalk • 02:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Provided that the article is compliant with the requirements I don't see a problem with it remaining a GA. If its considerably below it could be challenged and lose its GA status; and if its marginal the fairest way forward would be WP:GAR. Pyrotec (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, moving a little slow on responses. I had User:Wehwalt‎, another GA reviewer and sysop, take a look at the page and he has said "the article appears to meet all GA standards and I see nothing untoward in the GAN". So that essentially attaches his name to the review, so I won't have to worry about Xtzou's name being attached to it now. Since Wehwalt has reviewed the review itself, this can be marked resolved. - NeutralHomerTalk • 01:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:GAN error

When a GA is nominated in the Miscellaneous category, the GA template places the article in this Category:GAN error category.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Miscellaneous" is not a valid GA subtopic: all GAs (which includes successful GANs) need to be listed on the GA page somewhere. "Miscellaneous" nominations should be moved into other GAN subsections once agreement is reached on the subtopic. In the interim, the subtopic parameter should be left blank: the article will then be listed instead at Category:Good article nominees without a subtopic.
I've tweaked the documentation to clarify this. It is helpful if editors fix nominations listed in these two categories. Geometry guy 20:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Economy of Iran

Please see the peer review here and the talk page itself. May be I am missing something, but this article is designated as "GA". Why does this bot here keeps removing it from the list? Thanks for any explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is not a GA. For whatever reason, the editors who assessed the article designated it as GA even though it had never gone through a GA review. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The GA rating in the project templates appears to derive from Talk:Iran/Archive_11#Economy_of_Iran_-_Request_for_Comments (see [4]). While the peer reviewer agreed it was GA, the talk page has neither a {{GA}} (separate from projects) or a /GA1 subpage, so the script doesn't find evidence of a GA review. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
So what is your suggestion? re-list it again? can somebody de-activate or reprogram this bot? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You could list the article at WP:GAN#Economics_and_business, and within a few weeks someone will review the article for GA. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I did, but I am having second thoughts now. May be I should have nominated the article for "FA status" altogether. (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You can, but I think you need to create an account to do so. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have an account already. The question is "does the article (in its present form) meet the FA criteria?". I think it does by comparison to other articles and given some minor changes, such as repairing or replacing all the broken external links. ANY IDEA? :) (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
YOu say you have an account - why are posting as an IP, that looks like WP:Sock puppetry to me. If you are confident that it meest the FA criteria in full, with no more work to be done then go ahead and nominate. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Space/Astronomy categories

The "Astronomical observation and space exploration" and "Astronomy and astrophysics" categories have a significant overlap, and there is not category to accurately accommodate non-exploratory spaceflight, such as communications satellites, technology and microgravity research spacecraft, etc. There is also no category to accommodate rockets, and the (currently) single example of this is listed under "Air transport", which is far from ideal. I would therefore like to propose that the "Astronomical observation and space exploration" category be renamed "Rocketry and spaceflight", and cover all rockets spacecraft and spaceflights, with the astronomical observation part of the category being merged into the "Astronomy and astrophysics" category. I feel this would deal with the overlap, and provide more accurate descriptions for rockets and spacecraft. --GW 17:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but where do you think satellite observation (like Space Interferometry Mission) would go? Also, when you revise the sections, change the links from WP:GAN#Physics_and_astronomy. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It won't eliminate all overlap, it'll just reduce it somewhat. I would put SIM under spaceflight, as it is doing the observing from space. That meets one of the looser definitions of space exploration. --GW 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it does raise the question as to whether the "Rocketry and spaceflight" category should be under science, or under Engineering and technology. --GW 20:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This has been open for over six days with hardly any discussion. If no objections are raised by 28 July, I'll implement it per WP:BOLD --GW 19:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, on second thoughts, I'll just make this an RfC. I don't really want to make major changes to the GA categories without a broader consensus. --GW 19:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


Should the GA subcategory "Astronomical observation and space exploration" be split into a new subcategory for "Rocketry and spaceflight" and the existing "Astronomy and astrophysics" subcategory? And should this be listed under science or under engineering. --GW 19:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My take on this is that nobody cares? This RfC has been sitting here idling for more than 2 weeks and nobody commented on this after a short burst of conversation before the RfC was initiated. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I hadn't even seen this - must have missed it on my watchlist when it went up. It seems like a reasonable idea, GW. Do you have any idea how many articles will be in each category if we implemented your proposal? Dana boomer (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Based on current GAs, the spaceflight category would contain 13 articles and the astronomy one would contain 16. The following articles would be moved from the AOSE category to the astronomy one: AMiBA, History of supernova observation, Jodrell Bank Observatory, Lovell Telescope, McLaughlin Planetarium, University of Illinois Observatory, Warner and Swasey Observatory. In addition, Black Arrow would be moved from one of the engineering categories into the rocketry and spaceflight one, and Great Comet of 1882 would be moved from AOSE to Solar System. --GW 15:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Rather small. However, if I'm understanding this right, there will be exactly the same number of subcategories there are now, they would just be named differently and rearranged a bit? If so, I'd say go ahead with it. If I'm misunderstanding and there's actually a completely new subcategory being made, what would you think of just expanding the name of the existing category? Dana boomer (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
There would be no difference in the number of categories, so yes, it would be effectively renaming the AOSE subcategory. I don't mind whether it is presented as renaming or replacement, as long as the requested changes to the scopes of those categories are made. --GW 20:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think this has had long enough now, I've done everything I can to stimulate discussion, but since there have been no objections I'm going to implement it. --GW 20:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Harder to Breathe

"Harder to Breathe" is currently listed in the Albums section, when I believe it should be in the Songs section. I did not want to make the change myself in case there was a particular reason for its location. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed it from the recordings section, it was already listed in the songs section correctly. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

When to delist after an individual reassessment goes

I made an individual reassessment which is being opposed by a number of editors: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/The_Real_Global_Warming_Disaster/1. Should we default to removal from the GA list since my points listed at Talk:The_Real_Global_Warming_Disaster/GA3 are not being dealt with? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that you have not closed the reassessment. I have commented at the community reassessment which is where the discussion is now taking place. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't close the assessment because I wanted to give the article writer some time to try to fix the article. The train wreck that ensued with additional parties jumping on bandwagons didn't help matters, but essentially, there seems to be a problem with the neutrality of the article since it gives global warming denialist reviews more WP:WEIGHT than they deserve and also covers the content too closely as compared to what is considered best practice outlined at WP:FRINGE. Before I had a chance to close it, the community reassessment happened. I'm not sure what to do in such cases. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Large categories

There are currently a few extremely large third-level categories on this page (up to 467 [Road infrastructure] and 390 [Organisms]). I would like those to be split, as such large groups don't fulfill the purpose of the subcategorization, which is to make it easy to find related GAs. Are there any reasons not to split those? I think "Organisms" can be split into animals, fungi, plants, and others; the roads can perhaps be split by country, but someone more familiar with the subject may have better ideas. Ucucha 16:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Sasata (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick comment, but 400 of those Road infrastructure articles are from the US. Imzadi 1979  17:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I like your (Ucucha's) way of splitting up the Organisms section, but agree with Imzadi about the road issue. As most of the roads are from the US, splitting along national borders won't help much. Perhaps split into US and everything else, then split the US regionally? Midwest, northeast, southwest, etc? Or just split out the regions that have the most (i.e., the east, especially the northeast). Dana boomer (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there a clear divider in definition between, say, Northeast, Midwest, southeast etc? Not something I've thought of but seems a good idea. Agree about splitting of 'organisms' section, never been happy with that name. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
US 9 regions.svg
We could use the US Census Bureau divisions, seen in the picture at right. The general colors are the four main geographic areas (which would probably be best for our purposes, at this point), while the shading further splits it into nine areas (which is probably a bit more than we need at this point). Thoughts? Dana boomer (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I can support those divisions. Should any one of the four areas get too large, we can divide into the smaller areas, or split individual states at the time. Got my support there. Imzadi 1979  22:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
So we can split into "Road infrastructure: Southern United States", "Road infrastructure: Western United States", "Road infrastructure: Midwestern United States", "Road infrastructure: Northeastern United States", and "Road infrastructure: Other"? That also leaves United States numbered highways, which could presumably also go into "Other". Ucucha 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
We're going to need one for national articles. U.S. Route 50 runs from Sacramento, CA to Ocean City, MD by way of St. Louis, MO. That means it's in three of the four regions. That's only one of many transcontinental highways that have full articles that should come to GA in the future. Imzadi 1979  17:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

These are the other categories with more than 200 articles. I've listed some ideas for splits; feel free to add more.

  • Architecture (203) – no obvious divider; perhaps by type or by geography
  • Performers, groups, composers and other music people (286) – separate bands and individuals, or by genre?
  • Recordings, compositions and performances (305) – separate albums and other things, or by genre?
  • Songs (333) – genre?
  • Films (289) – genre?
  • Live action television episodes (335) – perhaps by individual show; I see a lot of 30 Rock, The Office, and a few others
  • Animated television episodes (325) – same; lots of South Park, The Simpsons, &c.
  • Video games (269) – genre?
  • Conflicts, battles and military exercises (313) – perhaps by period, or separate some parts, like classical, Napoleonic, WW II
  • Military people (217) – by country, or period?
  • Warships (267) – separate submarines from the rest?
  • Tropical cyclones: Atlantic (205) – by time period?

There are only a few obvious subdivisions there; I think subdivisions by genre may be subjective and subdivisions by time period are bound to be arbitrary. On the other hand, there may be some small categories we can get rid of. For example, under "Biology and medicine", I don't see why "Books" and "Evolution and reproduction" need to be separate from "Biology" (nor, for that matter, why evolution and reproduction should necessarily go together). Ucucha 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I just split "Organisms"; could someone check whether everything is correct? I placed a couple of lichens and Ornatifilum under fungi. I also noticed that of our three virus GAs, two are under "Health and medicine" (Canine parvovirus and Poliovirus) and the third was under "Organisms" and is now under "Other organisms" with a kelp and a bacterium (Elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus). What placement is correct? Ucucha 16:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks like "Animals" needs to be split further, along with proposals above. Note that articles can be listed in more than one place on the GA page, although this is not encouraged. Geometry guy 23:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I split "Road infrastructure" into 6 categories. They are Other (25), United States (3), Northeastern United States (271), Southern United States (36), Midwestern United States (63) and (Western United States (71). The Northeastern United States probably could stand a further subdivision. The next Census level divisions would be Mid-Atlantic states vs. New England states, but the bulk of that section is New York and New Jersey. Thoughts? Feel free to change the section titles, but the 3 "United States" cross the existing regional boundaries. Imzadi 1979  05:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Geography and places query

In Wikipedia:Good_articles#Geography_and_places we currently have both an Asia subsection as well as a Middle East one (which has one entry). A number of Israel places are in the Asia one. Is it worth just having them all in one category, namely Asia? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It must be an newish addition, any Geo/Places Isreal/Palestine articles that I've passed at GAN in the last couple of years, I've put into Asia, there was no Middle East subdivision. Pyrotec (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How come this error survived two years?

An article was marked GA by an accident - two years ago, I just reverted it: [5] --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sort of someone going through all GAs manually, it is entirely possible for this sort of thing to survive. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
In [6], the article is not "marked GA"; it had no GA or AH template (nor was there any GA template in the mainspace article). One WikiProject template had a GA-class rating, which would be a rating internal to that WikiProject. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Good articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Good articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a whole new area of WP for me, so I'm not familiar with it or what others think of it. An astonishing number of GAs have made the list (over 2700), including ones on subjects as obscure as an individual type of bullet, a disease i've never heard of and one of several extrasolar planets that has no name. On the other hand, there are lots and lots that are very worthwhile in the list. Given that one of the things that gets articles points in the selection process is their quality level (400 pts for GA), I'm wondering whether participants at this project have any concerns that matters that are rather obscure might be getting included? And if they are, is it perhaps too hard to do anything about it - I'm certainly not volunteering to scour the list of 2700 to make manual suggestions as to worthy omissions... hamiltonstone (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Further splitting

Some subsections, especially in the arts section have become really long. I propose splitting those in: "pre-2000" and "post-2000". Something similar could be done with the games section. The animals section seems to have a similar problem, so it could be split into "living" and "extinct". Any thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

See the section at the top of the page. I would favor splitting animals along taxonomic lines, for example in mammals, birds, and others. Under your proposed division, Oryzomys nelsoni and Oryzomys albiventer, two closely related species, would be in separate subsections, and where would Oryzomys peninsulae be placed? Ucucha 11:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with such chronological splitting. Theatre, film and television could be split into its constituent parts. Music could be split into popular music and classical or maybe artistes and recordings. Sport, perhaps sportspeople, teams and other; or major sports such as football (association), cricket, american football, wrestling, basketball? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please split by genre, taxa, and other encyclopedic divisions. Geometry guy 22:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Theatre, film and television splitting: cutting a line at 2000 would be very easy to implement, while pop and classical splitting might be ambiguous for some cases. Nergaal (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Animals could be split into vertebrates and invertebrates. Nergaal (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Warships: split into European (Russian/Soviet would be here), US, and everything else. Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Conflicts: split them by millennia? Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Video games: there are 7 categories listed on the article. Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
TV episodes: the most prolific shows should get their separate subcategory. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

436 kilobytes!

The page Wikipedia:Good articles is 436 kilobytes large. This is quite unacceptable, especially as it's the main entry page for Good Articles. The list of GAs needs to be separated out, preferably with each of the main sections (Arts, Language and literature, etc) on its own subpage. Those subpages can then be transcluded onto the main list, so that the entire list can be viewed in one go for those as wants. But that list should not be transcluded onto the main GA page - it's much too big. Having had no prior involvement here I'm not going to be so Bold as to go ahead and do it, but it really needs to happen, ASAP. User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage can be used to link one or more random GAs on the main GA page on a rotating daily basis, if that floats anyone's boat (see here for an unrelated but similar use). Rd232 talk 10:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they should portalize them.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 12:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. When I tried to view the diff on some vandalism to the GA main page yesterday, it nearly crashed my browser to load it. Kudos to Rd232 for the suggestion. Anyone up for making it happen? Acdixon (talk contribs count) 14:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not the primary entry page for random readers who click on the GA icon (I helped to ensure that). But yes, something like this is going to be required sooner or later. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 20:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes I see what you mean, the little GA icon on the article page top right links to the Summary subpage. That was a helpful interim solution but I think it best changed back to the main GA page now. Rd232 talk 10:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I've gone ahead and done it, including updating the {{Article History}} links and the Good Article header (not sure if I missed anything). It's not hard to undo if necessary. I think the biggest subpage is Wikipedia:Good articles/Arts at about 115kb, so that might need splitting in future. Rd232 talk 10:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this! I cannot comment on technical aspects, but it could not go on forever with one page only, as the list of GAs will hopefully keep growing! Buchraeumer (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that this has finally been done. The Arts section could certainly be split up, meanwhile the Mathematics section is only a measly 1.8kB. It might make sense to subsume this under Natural sciences, though some mathematicians might object to that? Lampman (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer to look at the full list and thought from the above, that it would still be available, but I can't see any obvious link to the full list. Have I missed something? Brad78 (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I hadn't got round to it, as it required a kludge and the resulting page is so slow to load. Now linked from WP:GA, it is Wikipedia:Good articles/all. Rd232 talk 14:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


This was done a bit hasty in my opinion. I am fine with subpages, but but 10 subpages is a bit much.

  • Arts: 120kb
  • Language and lit: 17kb
  • Everyday life: 67kb
  • Social sciences: 39kb
  • Geography and places: 16kb
  • History: 81kb
  • Engineering and tech: 35kb
  • Math: 1.8kb
  • Natural sciences:49kb
    • FA: 134kb
    • FL: 149kb
    • FSounds: 67kb

I think the split was a bit overzealous, and I propose that instead have 4? subpages?

  • Arts (120k +17k from lit = 137k)
  • Everyday life (76k)
  • History, geography and places: (16k +81k =97k)
  • Sciences, engineering and math: (39k + 35k + 2k + 49k =125k)

The supages would still keep the current major sections. Anyone pro or against? Nergaal (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, IMO. Only I don't see why the "Social sciences" should go together with the natural sciences; they've much more to do with history etc. (on the other hand, geography is partly a natural science...). Buchraeumer (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Whichever sensible way does not get 10 subpages would be fine with me. Nergaal (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the problem with having 10 subpages? Ucucha 19:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see the problem with 10 subpages either. The 4 subpages suggested here all "probably should be divided" or "almost certainly should be divided" according to the size guidelines. Also, keep in mind that the GA project adds some 2,5k articles a year; there's no harm in creating a system that is sustainable also in the long run. But again: split up arts, get rid of maths. Lampman (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason there's 10 subpages is that there were 10 categories, which kept the conversion simple. With the exception of Maths, the resulting pages seem fine to me, and 1 small subpage isn't a big problem. Rd232 talk 20:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting by GAtopic (the 10 categories) is much more natural and easier to maintain. It isn't necessary for the topics to all have similar size. Geometry guy 21:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


Was anyone planning to notify me? This obviously breaks the script that updated WP:GA. There is no chance the script will be updated for end-of-month stats, and unless the pass rate drops dramatically, little chance it will be updated before the 10k GA milestone. The GA count was noted in edit summaries on WP:GA. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think that would work now, because WP:GA won't be edited much. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what script you're referring to, but it shouldn't be that much work to point it at the ten subpages and do the same thing there, and add up the totals. Where is this script? Rd232 talk 14:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
It does more than add up the numbers. Is it possible to put humpty-dumpty back together again at least until the 10k milestone? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Rd, see [7] for an example of what the bot does. Ucucha 02:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think of this, but the Gimmebot does an important job; I've been using it for updating the monthly statistics. For September I had to use the latest update, from 1:27 on 29 September, and add the number of additions to Wikipedia:Good articles/recent before the end of the month. This won't be possible in the long run though. Lampman (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, so where's the bot code? (Seems to be non-public.) I'm surprised that bot operator (and coder?) Gimmetrow/Gimmetoo seems to think it's a big deal to update the code. On the face of it, whatever the bot was doing on 1 page just needs duplicating to each of the 10 subpages:

  1. remove articles from the good article list when they are promoted to featured articles: check new FAs against each subpage, edit as necessary
  2. monitor 10 subpages' edits for stats, and add them up.

It sounds so easy I might even be willing to attempt it myself, despite never having coded a bot. What am I missing? Rd232 talk 10:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

One issue is articles listed on more than one subpage. When they were all on the same page, duplicate links fell out automatically. Not that this is a particularly difficult bit to code, but I would still have to code and test it. And with any change like this, I would expect to discover other, unexpected problems. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, OK. Without seeing the code, I can't really comment. Sorry, I wasn't aware of the bot and shouldn't have been quite so bold; but at this point, going back involves manually tracking changes to subpages in addition to reverting, and the Big Page is such a pain to edit that I don't really want to suggest that. Hope you can squeeze the time for updating the bot soon. PS I wasn't aware of any duplication... is that supposed to happen, or an occasional error? Rd232 talk 21:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
No categorization system is perfect, so some links fit more than one spot. Wouldn't putting the page together just involve copy-pasting the subpages with the appropriate headers and footers? Gimmetoo (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh... well yes, you could of course do that. If you really think it's worth going back to the old system until you fix the script, and then rebuild the subpages again when you have, well OK, do that. (Don't forget to update {{ArticleHistory}} which links to the subcategories; other GA templates don't seem to do that). I would have thought it'd be easier to fix the script, but it's up to you. Rd232 talk 10:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The basic format updates can be applied to all the pages, but it may take some work to figure out things like overall counts and non-listed articles that involve all the subpages. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way that Wikipedia:Good articles/all might help? It transcludes everything, and whilst you won't get the individual edits to subpages from it, you can perhaps use it to make managing some things easier, eg when removing an article promoted to FA you can see which subpages(s) need changing. Or checking for duplicates might be easier that way. Rd232 talk 10:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


For anyone interested or wanting to write a signpost article, first listing following [8] was [9]. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This change of format (while much needed) was implemented with unnecessary haste, and the GA community owes thanks to you for responding with such grace. Thank you for adapting GimmeBot to the task, and ensuring that the 10k milestone is recorded to inspire future contributions. Geometry guy 23:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hear hear; sorry for excessive WP:BOLDness. Thanks Gimmetoo. Rd232 talk 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Not only Gimmetoo. Ucucha 13:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, Gimmetoo et al. :) Rd232 talk 14:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, for the Article Wizard I created a documentation page, Wikipedia talk:Article wizard/Documentation. Perhaps this would be a good idea for the Good Article setup as a whole (or perhaps it exists already but isn't linked from anywhere I've seen). Rd232 talk 14:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


... for the new GA sustainability? Any ideas? Sasata (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How about 'Philosophies and movements'? I know it isn't perfect, but... Arsenikk (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to recategorize it. Sasata (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Are double listings allowed?

South Park and Futurama are listed twice in Arts: under "Animation" and "Television and drama". Is this allowed? If not, what should be their proper categories? Jappalang (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, double listings are allowed in general, but here, the categories were probably meant to be exclusive. For instance, animated television episodes have their own category, rather than listing under animation, television, and episodes. Given that The Iron Giant and Mulan are listed only under animation and are not in "films", I think "television and radio drama" should likewise exclude animated television. (Animated radio drama?). Gimmetoo (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I notice the same is the case with Family Guy. To me it seems natural to maintain the separation between live action and animation that we have in television episodes, so animated television shows should go under "Animation". Perhaps "television and radio drama" should be renamed "Live action television and drama", to avoid further confusion in the future. Not sure what "drama" is supposed to mean though, this could be taken to exclude comedy. Something like "shows and seasons" seems more accurate (then again, "Live action television and radio shows and seasons" is a real monster of a heading...) Lampman (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles not listed on WP:GA subpages

Gimmetoo (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added them al, with the exception of Arado E.381which was already listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. E.381 was listed under a redirect, but both the article and the redirect's talk page were marked GA. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to GAN instructions = all nominators must review

Please discuss, at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Proposed_change_to_GAN_instructions_.3D_all_nominators_must_review. -- Cirt (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Expanded article counts

It looks like Gimmebot tots up the number of GAs in each sub-section, but doesn't produce an overall number. Could that be added to the list at WP:Good articles/Summary, so that what now says:

List of good articles, arranged by subject
Arts · Language and literature...

would then say:

List of good articles, arranged by subject
Arts (X articles) · Language and literature (X articles)...

Or perhaps, we should expand the summary box to include the major subcategories, like this:

List of good articles, arranged by subject

I think the expanded version might give readers a better idea of what they could expect to find in each category, and seeing how many articles are listed might encourage them to click the links.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The subpage totals can usefully be added to the header, but all the subsections would be way too much clutter there. But it would be a very useful thing to have just on the GA front page (Wikipedia:Good_articles). Rd232 talk 18:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You're aware that there are only 38 sub-categories altogether (an average of less than four per major division)? I'm not convinced that 38 items, directly related to the sole point for the page, can be "way too much clutter". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Try it and see. It's 4 times as many items, and you have to arrange them in a helpful way (as you did above), which takes space. I think it'll work very well on the front page, and quite badly on the subpage headers, but you're welcome to try and make it work on both. Rd232 talk 01:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at it. I think that the format I chose takes up less space than putting each item on its own line. It will probably be two columns on a regular to moderately wide screen, and three on a wide screen. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the other approach that I considered was this:

Set in the same size columns, that would be the most compact option. But the table cell is centered, and I couldn't easily think of a way to get the head centered and the bullet list left justified in the same cell. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add GAs to DYK

There is currently a discussion ongoing (prompted by concerns over DYK copyvio) to include some recently promoted GAs to the DYK updates. The discussion has been going on both at the DYK talk page (where consensus is currently being assessed) and, previously, at the administrators' noticeboard. The proposal is getting quite a lot of support. I think this would be a wonderful opportunity to draw attention to the newly promoted GAs, and to the GA project in general. Perhaps we should prepare for the eventuality, maybe by making some mock-up hooks to show what it would look like? Lampman (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Unique case

I have just listed Grammy Award for Best Disco Recording as a GA. However I couldn't find a suitable sub-topic for it (under 'Music'), so I created an 'Awards' one. Feel free to change this any way if you feel that it is wrong. Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

More discussion about GA at DYK

The long-running discussion about including newly promoted good articles at WP:DYK has spawned yet another proposal that folk knowledgable about the GA process may want to take a look at. Several issues have arisen, including whether recent good articles are the type of new content that it's appropriate to showcase at DYK, whether the GA review process will save time by avoiding duplicaiton of DYK review, and if the two processes can be integrated somehow (e.g. a successful GA review leading to a suggested "hook" for DYK reviewers to look at). I haven't been an active GA reviewer for a while now, and I suspect input from someone who would understand if/how the GA review system would match (or could be changed to match) the needs of DYK would be helpful. TheGrappler (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Inbred reviewing

There is more extensive discussion at WT:WikiProject Good articles#Inbred reviewing

Perhaps we should have a rule that a reviewer cannot review more than 5 articles from any given nominator. There are a few cases where pairings are developing and editors A and B are reviewing too many of each other's articles. This results in a less rigorous review, and the potential for a drifting away from community-wide standards. Ideally, a nominator would receive input from a different reviewer on each GA nomination. Racepacket (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, there would be many more GA reviewers with a broad range of interests willing to review articles from all subject categories. In reality, there are a limited number of reviewers, and in most cases, they tend to review with the subject area are are interested in/familiar with. I tend to review science articles, and frequently review nominations from the same submitter, simply because they are the ones submitting articles most frequently. Rcej reviews the mushroom articles I submit, and has done so many now that I think the quality is consistent, and he knows exactly what to expect, and what should be in a fungus article; I don't see any evidence of this collaboration resulting in a drift away from GA standards (but would, of course, be happy to field any specific concerns). Rather than making a sweeping rule that will make it harder for submitters to get reviews, and for reviewers to review the articles they want, why not bring up specific problematic instances at GAR? Sasata (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly object to a rule that "a reviewer cannot review more than 5 articles from any given nominator". I have certainly reviewed more than five articles from the same nominator(s); and since I've reviewed about 330 nominations in the last couple of years I don't regard that that being abnormal. A competent editor can certainly produce dozens of good strong nominations in one year if they choose to do so. However, I would fully support a rule blocking "you pass my nomination and I'll pass yours" reviews; but that "rule" is not under proposal. Pyrotec (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
There were other comments here that diappeared. Racepacket (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added a hatnote above. Geometry guy 00:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: last 15 hours of voting in the ArbCom elections

Dear editors,

Now is your final chance to vote in the December 2010 elections for new members of ArbCom. Voting will close just before midnight UTC tonight, Sunday 5 December (earlier for North America: just before 4 pm west coast, 7 pm east coast). Eligible voters (check your eligibility) are encouraged to vote well before the closing time due to the risk of server lag.

Arbitrators occupy high-profile positions and perform essential and demanding roles in handling some of the most difficult and sensitive issues on the project. The following pages may be of assistance to voters: candidate statements, questions for the candidates, discussion of the candidates and personal voter guides.

For the election coordinators, Tony (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Splitting sections

The History section has two large 350+ article subsections in the "War and Military" tab ("Conflicts, battles and military exercises" and "Warships") to me the two sections are so large they are virtually unreadable. If no one objects, I'm going to split these sections into two smaller sections each. I planned to split "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" into "(before 1850)" and "(1850 to present)" sections, and "Warships" into a "Warships (Submarines)" and "Warships (Surface vessels)" section. Does anyone object? —Ed!(talk) 06:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All right. Since no one minds I'll do it now. —Ed!(talk) 02:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
What's so special about 1850? Imzadi 1979  03:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be the best dividing line to cut the number of articles in half. Actually looking at it 1800 might be seems like there aren't many conflicts that would be split up by an 1800 dividing line. —Ed!(talk) 06:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Help getting a couple stats?

Hi folks, I am seeking the number of Good Articles as of June 30, 2009 and as of June 30, 2010. But that number is apparently computed based on category membership: Template:GA number rather than updated by bot or manually. So I don't know any way to get these numbers. Any suggestions? Has this come up before? Thanks for any help, -Pete (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Good article statistics for monthly figures. The nearest stats are 6973 (1 July 2009) and 9316 (1 July 2010). There are links you can follow to the edit history of WP:GA if you need more accurate info. Geometry guy 23:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
SO excellent. I actually finally found that on my own, but it eluded me (and a couple other longtime 'pedians) for quite a while! Tremendously helpful though, thanks. -Pete (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

De-listing of Insurgency in Ogaden and 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden

FYI, I have de-listed Insurgency in Ogaden without a GAR. The article contains copyright violations from start to finish and has had to be blanked. The violations were not picked up in the drive-by review that passed the article as a GA. --MkativerataCCI (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've now de-listed 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden for the same reason. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It is preferable to use an individual GAR for this purpose, so that the reasons for the delisting are permanently archived, and recorded in the Article History. I've fixed/created Article History for you. May I also suggest, as a matter of courtesy, that you avoid presumptive statements such as "drive by review": reviewers should certainly record more detail in their reviews than are present here, but that does not necessarily imply a lack of consideration. Geometry guy 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing MoS to win GA

There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (embedded lists) in which editors assert (without, NB, examples or evidence) that GA reviewers are inappropriately insisting on the conversion of embedded lists into prose. They propose that the MoS guideline be changed to explicitly exempt their preferred types of lists.

I think it would be useful to have some experienced GA reviewers involved in this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New GA bot function

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#New_function_for_GA_bot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


The Grayrigg derailment is listed twice: once under "Engineering failures and disasters" and once under "Rail transport". --Eisfbnore talk 18:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, no problem with that. There are a few articles that fit into more than one category. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, is there any guidance anywhere on this topic? The area I work in has a tendency to leave me stumped as to what category to place an article in (e.g. is a Shakespearean play to be considered performing arts, literature, or history? Are biographical articles on Shakespeare, his family, his critics and biographers to be considered primarily history, biography, or literature? etc.), and listing it twice would in some cases be a welcomed shortcut through the knot. --Xover (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I found several threads using this search phrase in the archive search box. There are probably others to be found if you use your own criteria. I hope that this helps. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Shapley–Folkman lemma

How can this article be reviewed for A-class status? (In contrast, the GA-status and FA-status procedures are well-documented.) Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy! Does the Mathematics Project (or economics ... ) have any procedure for an A-Class review? (I know that the Shapley-Folkman lemma article is not ready for FA-status, but I'm thinking ahead.) Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Mathematics used to have A-Class review, but it may not currently be active. I do not know about Economics. In any case, Wikiproject assessments are a matter for Wikiprojects, not the Good Articles process. Geometry guy 19:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! (Sorry for asking here.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Rail tunnels

Should tunnels be moved from "Rail transport" to "Rail bridges and stations"? It seems kind of intuitive to me to group tunnels and bridges, and if you're going to lump stations and bridges together, you might as well.
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that move. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Query regarding review process

British Pakistanis has just been promoted to GA status without a review page being created. According to the editor who promoted the article, the review is implicit in the decision (see here). Is it correct that this is allowed? I've never come across this situation before. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I can't help questioning how thorough the examination was; in the awards/societies section there is "Notable societies include university Societys[173][174][175] and Doctors/medical professional associations.[176][177]", which besides the obviously dubious spelling, is sourced entirely to primary sources (the societies/associations themselves). Rd232 talk 15:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I also doubt that the article meets the criteria. I wanted to raises issues such as this on the review page, but it never came into existence. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I have now removed the awards/societies section due to its primary sources and the rest made it too short to justify. Which part of the article do you now think does not meet the criteria?--Sansonic (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, my concern here was more to do with the lack of obvious process. I don't want to get into an extended debate about the content of the article here because it's not the right place. Once this issue has been resolved, I will share my thoughts on the article talk page or on a review page if one is created. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the article's talk page regarding the GA criteria and where I feel it falls short. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This is process wonkery. To satisfy your qualms, Cordless Larry, I've created a review page here: Talk:British Pakistanis/GA2. Now we have a copy of the criteria and some little green icons beside it. I would also point to the vast improvements that were made to the article in response to Talk:British Pakistanis/GA1.

You know, I haven't reviewed a good article for many moons. If this is the average treatment afforded to a reviewer, I won't be back. AGK [] 13:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way and my intention wasn't to slant your reviewing skills but rather to establish whether a review page has to be created for every GA (a question I still don't know the answer to). Thanks for creating the page. I agree that it seems rather unnecessary to have a page solely composed of the criteria and of green ticks, but if the issues identified above had been taken account of in the review, then that wouldn't have been the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

GA processes have changed considerably since the project began. In the early days it was common for an article to be listed without a review, or even a nomination. Reviewers returning to the process after many years may be unfamiliar with the changes and may legitimately question them.

In broad terms, changes have been made not to raise the GA standard (the GA criteria are much the same as ever) nor to add process wonkery as a barrier to listing articles; they have been made to provide greater reliability and accountability, so that for every article listed as a GA it is easy to find out who listed it when, and any comments they made on the quality of the article.

So the answer to the question is yes, review pages are required for every GAN review. What goes on the review page is a matter for the reviewer: GA checklists are not required, and can be (as noted above) pointless. Reviewers should be guided by what will be most useful for editors revisiting the review page in the future. Even when passing an article which meets all the GA criteria, it is perfectly possible to leave a short and helpful review, such as:

  • I checked the article in against the issues raised in the previous review and they have all been fixed. In fact the article has been vastly improved and I see no other problems with regard to the GA criteria, so I am listing it as a GA. Good work + Angie A. Reviewer 15:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

When failing a nomination, it is more important to leave comments, so that article editors know why the article was failed and have specific things they can work on to improve the article. I hope that helps to explain — Geometry guy 15:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Geometry guy. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
If the consensus today is that it is desirable for there to be a review page for every good article nomination, then I will of course abide by that. AGK [] 13:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know that, after a read through the article, I've requested that it be reassessed. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Just to let the community know... due to unforeseen circumstances I will be unable to complete (or even properly start the review...)! Will someone please take over? — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 23:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Good articles and inline citations

In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#On_citing_every_sentence I make a claim that modern day GAs require that all sentences (barring obvious case) require an inline citation. Some editors disagree. Perhaps some GA reviewers would like to chip in there? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The claim is wrong. See GA criterion 2b. Even featured articles do not require inline citations for every sentence. Geometry guy 21:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not familiar with the good article process but it seems strange that an article 1973 DeKalb-Peachtree Airport Learjet 24 crash was promoted while it has a proposed deletion tag on it. The proposed deletion was about the notability of the article put it appears this is not a criteria in the good article process. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the history a {{Merge}} tag was placed on the article on the same day that GA was awarded, but after the award had been made. Notability is not a requirement GA; and provided that it was correctly assessed (to make it clear I'm not challenging the assessment I've not even looked at it) the article can remain a GA. However, I would be concerned if a merge was made and the GA "transferred" to an "unassessed" article. There would be strong grounds for reassessing the merged article (if and when it happened) and removing GA-status if it was found to be non-compliant with WP:WIAGA. Pyrotec (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with Pyro's assessment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:GAN reviews by User:Ankit Maity

Ankit Maity has signed up at both Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011 and Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress#Meta and is "actively" (most probably not the right word) carrying out GAN reviews. One was Talk:Kepler-9c/GA1, which he failed: the original nominator re-nominated it without comment at GAN and I "passed" it at Talk:Kepler-9c/GA2; another was Talk:SA-500D/GA1 which was "passed". I had intended to do a personal WP:GAR, but the original nominator submitted to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SA-500D/1 on the basis of an inadequate review before I got there. At certain stages at least two of the review pages were listed as GANs (for example, see [10]). A third review, Talk:Perl/GA2, is well on its way into bringing GAN into disrepute: I though it was going well, but I've seriously changed my mind. Finally, I see (User talk:Ankit Maity#GA reviews) that HJ Mitchell has reverted more inadequate reviews. Can we dissuade this user from reviewing? Pyrotec (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. The user has been frustratingly nonspecific, at times rude, and unclear on or unaware of copyright policies. It has been difficult to discuss these issues with him at Talk:Perl/GA2, as he has consistently failed to respond to the key points. I have some doubt as to whether his language skills at this time are sufficient for the collaboration required in reviews. At the very least, he should not undertake any future reviews without a mentor until he has a working knowledge of policy. Feezo (Talk) 01:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Citations in GA Introductions - surely they are not being removed?

I've just easing back in to do some editing after a fairly long break, and someone (after making a rather 'knee-jerk' revert to me in a very minor article) tells me that GA's do not need refs in their intro's - and thus doesn't do the hunting work to go and source-check the reasons for my edit. The text I removed went way beyond the orignal source's meaning, which I find to be totally unsurprising given that no reference - whether from within the article or new - were required to be given. The sources I found after looking turned out to be pretty weak ones too.

Obviously, the massive problem here is that GA's (supposing they are good enough at ref-level at Review anyway) can change in size considerably over time. For someone with an actual work ethic to go and source-check the new stuff added to an introduction - which let's be honest is the classic place people add junk - will involve trawling the article looking to see where it was 'adapted' from, supposing of course it is even covered in the article in the first place.

What is going on? It seems I've returned to find the place even more hard work than it was before! I can't see anything positive here, only negatives. Cite-less introductions do not look at all like what I always understood a 'Wikipedia article' to be - ie a source-based resource, and not an originally written one. Ref-less intro's look like they were written from scratch, and in many cases now of course they will be. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like differing interpretations of Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, which basically recommends editorial judgement and consensus. I have two GAs; one (Venezuela Crisis of 1902–1903) has zero citations in the lead, the other (Venezuela Crisis of 1895) has 8. Rd232 talk 01:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you recommend taking this anywhere better? I strongly believe that removing refs from intros is a bad idea across the board (perhaps your historical narrative example is an exception? But even then..), esp in pop culture articles like this one, which can easily get out of hand. I remember articles that needed particular refs that were better suited the intro - how does that happen if a kid culture 'consensus' (perhaps) says no refs are needed? Someone could be obliged to use other refs, and to write (or accept) inferior content perhaps. This fuzzy area is just creating work in my opinion, esp if it involves challenging consensus. It is too inconsistent for Wikiepdia, and when followed, will simply looks more like Britannica than WP. It must be a vandalism remover's nightmare too (at least the ones that check new text for false information, if they exist). Matt Lewis (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'll do it via the talk in your link. I'll recommend adding a line on when it actually is suitable to not use refs. The parag seems overly convoluted, and having a line saying it should 'be decided via consensus' is asking for trouble imo, and creating needless work. Clear guidelines are always better when it's possible to have them. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. IMHO: in general, if someone's bothered to do the work of adding refs to an intro, the burden of evidence should be firmly on those wishing to remove them. Rd232 talk 08:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As much as WP:LEDE matters here, the primary policy regarding this is WP:V. If something is surprising to the reader and likely to be challenged, regardless of its position in the article, it should have an adjacent citation. Data that is clearly covered in the rest of the article, and suitably cited there, may optionally be not cited, but if in doubt, cite.
Remember that there are multiple schools of thought involving ledes: some editors treat them as executive summaries of articles, while others use hooks, quotations and other devices to get the reader to keep reading. The latter class would definitely need inline citations. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I've seen a number of issues, so I'm composing a suggested rewrite on the talk page, giving all my reasons. I think a lead would look pretty silly with just one citation sitting in the middle where something is 'likely to be challenged', or simply has been. In my opinion, as long as Wikipedia says it is about 'verifiability not truth' (which is wise, if badly expressed and in my experience a gift for trolls) - then its relaxed attitude over dealing with contention here is completely add odds with that. Surely there is a school of thought that says, nothing should be seen as either likey or not on Wikipedia: impartial balance is always the key, and the encyclopedia should be written in a way that facilitates that, never forgetting that it is entirely and only based on verified sources (with all their many aspects and issues naturally connected to article quality), and [i]never[/i] on original research.
I do know that most people, for various reasons I suppose, are more than happy with Wikipedia chugging along as it is, but I'll be making my thoughts and suggestions known regardless. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=, now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=|jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Scope of image review during GA review process

GA criteria 6(a) requires each image used in the article to be "tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content." I have been nominating and reviewing articles with the assumption that is our only GA concern — if they are clear of copyright concerns they pass 6(a). Another reviewer is arguing that Wikipedia:Image use policy should also be enforced and any image which does not have complete information on its image page should be removed from the article. This is particularly difficult with images that were uploaded years ago by editors who are no longer active. How should the GA review handle an image has a valid copyright template or fair use rationale, but is less than complete on the other details, such as the date and location of a photo? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:IUP applies to all articles, regardless of status, because it is policy. It applies to stubs and features articles alike, and every assessment in between. As for the details, without reference to a specific review, I'd just say find the details and add them to comply with policy. Imzadi 1979  12:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought we were supposed to stick to the just the GA criteria in doing a GA review. If an image page with a valid copyright license or fair user rationale has something else wrong with it, or a different article does not follow every Wikipedia policy, I would find it odd to insist that the link to the offending article or photo be removed from the nominated article. Racepacket (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The criteria can't override policies to be applied to every article on Wikipedia. The criteria can selectively apply guidelines, but IUP is a policy, and must be observed in all articles. Imzadi 1979  15:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
So going forward, if I find a correctly licensed photo used in a GA nominated article that does not provide the exact time and place of the photo, I should fail the article? By the way, most of the photos that I have reviewed in highway articles do not meet such a strict test. Racepacket (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to note the IUP doesnt actually require the exact time and place! MilborneOne (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly my concern. This is why we should make reviewers demonstrate through an online quiz that they have read the criteria. In my article, the photo was of a building courtyard that was built in 1974, so I had "after 1973" as the date of the photo. The criteria for uploading a new photo makes less sense for photo uploaded long ago by editors who since went inactive. Racepacket (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Something like that should never have been a problem. It would be nice to have a more specific date (say the specific year, a month and year or the full date) but so long as the details are clear enough, the image should meet policy on that basis. If questioned, I'd just add a source for that building courtyard's 1974 date so it would read something like "After 1975, as the courtyard was built in 1974 per [11]" and call it good. Imzadi 1979  23:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
A late comment in case someone else encounters this: It's probably worth reading the guideline at Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Credo accounts

There are more Credo accounts available, and we've been asked to draw up a list of names and criteria to make sure the accounts go to content contributors. I've opened a discussion about parameters here, which I'm hoping won't get too bogged down. Any input about whether these are reasonable would be appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So we've drawn up some eligibility criteria, and after that it's first-come, first-served. The list will open on Wednesday, March 23 at 22:00 UTC, and will remain open for seven days. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts. Feel free to add your name even if you're lower on the list than the 400th, in case people ahead of you aren't eligible, and good luck! SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


I am thinking of splitting "Chemicals and elements" and "Stars, galaxies and extrasolar objects". Any thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

They aren't very big categories at present so I personally don't see any pressing need. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Delisting of good article

Shouldn't this page also include who decides what becomes a GA and who decides which GAs get delisted? Anytime I see articles being delisted, I see one individual's name, stating his disapproval, which makes it look like the delisting process is an individual's decision. I think this article could be much improved by addressing this question. Thank you--Tallard (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In short, No. This is not an article: it is a List of Good Articles (well the list is so long, it is a list of subjects). The box at the top right hand side provides links to where the answers to your questions can be found: for example at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, and in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. See also the yellow box at the top of this page, which states "This talk page should be used for discussions relating to the list of Good Articles itself. Please direct any comments regarding the improvement of the GA program as a whole to WikiProject:Good Articles. Thank you." Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see, thank you. I missed that because I generally miss any TOC placed on the right of the screen. I've noticed placing TOCs on the right edge is becoming very trendy in Wikipedia and I think it reduces readability, but I'll have to raise that concern somewhere else.--Tallard (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Technically, that's a WP:NAVBOX (takes you to other pages), not a WP:TOC (takes you to a different part of the same page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

New tool of potential use to reviewers

Please forgive the spam (I'm also posting about this to WT:DYK and WP:FA), but there's a new tool that I think reviewers may find useful in helping determine if copyright issues exist in articles: Duplication Detector. It compares an article with another page, including PDFs. It has little bells and whistles, such as permitting you to omit quotations or eliminate numbers. And it lists its output by priority. Mind you, it can't catch some close paraphrasing, since it relies on strings of duplicated text and the default setting of 2 words in tandem will generally need to be adjusted (I myself use 4 or 5, depending). Too, it can't eliminate uncreative content, such as job titles. Human evaluation is still need there.

There is also a template that goes with it, {{dupdet}}, if you'd like to link to its findings. For an example of this in action on a real issue, {{dupdet|Andrei Silard|}} produces Duplication Detector report. This example is not likely to be with us long (unless permission is provided). :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I forgive the spam as I didn't see it on the other pages. Thanks for the link. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


Is that in the intro really useful? (WP:GA" redirects here. For the country of Georgia WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country). For the U.S. state of Georgia WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state).) --Catalaalatac (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It's probably useful for a small number of people. Most of the shortcuts to WP:XX, where XX is on the List of U.S. state abbreviations, redirect to the WikiProject about the US state. "GA" is "Good article" on Wikipedia, but it's also "Georgia" in the real world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
USA = real world? :D - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 20:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Heh! heh! Jezhotwells (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad review experience

Having contributed to something like 20 GA, I have a little experience with the reviewing process. Till now, all my experiences were quite positive. Recently, however, I've had a rather confusing and not very helpful experience: Talk:Karl Marx/GA1. First, the review was speedied ([12]). I was surprised by the brievity of this review, on an article that is rather complex (compare to Talk:Max Weber/GA1). Next, another editor reverted the reviewer classification of the article as the GA ([13]). A short discussion occurred at Talk:Karl Marx/GA1, which, frankly, still perplexes me (what "fact"s...?!). I asked the reviewer about what's going on, he posted in the discussion "Is this on hold or something?" (not a question that one would expect from the reviewer, who should be in control of the review...). No reply was given to him, and three days later, the reviewer decided to overturn his original speedy pass with a speedy fail ([14]). To my question about why was it failed (I was waiting all the time for constructive criticism that I could address...) I got another enigmatic reply from the reviewer, "All the above". This would almost be hilarious, if this was some kind of comedy. I've cursorily reviewed several other reviews by Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs) and while also short, there was at least some meaningful discussion, so I am assuming that he just had a bad day (or series of days) as far as the Karl Marx review is concerned. As it is, I am very disappointed with a review and I'd ask for some serious reviewer to revisit this article, hopefully reopening the review and providing a proper commentary. Please note I am not disappointed because the review was failed, I am disappointed because the review was not helpful (not in its initial speedy pass, not in the (lack of) input that followed, nor in the final speedy fail). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it doesn't appear to have been a brilliant review. i suggest that is you are happy that it meets the GA criteria you simply renominate. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I will, but I wanted to draw attention to this failure of the review process. If this was my first GA review experience, I would probably never bother with it again. I often have my students write GA on Wikipedia, and if this was their experience, I doubt that even my apology would make them stay on as editors. As such, I wonder what can we do to reduce the chance of such failures? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
According to the reviewer's userpage, they are 11 years old. One might think that one would need a little more life experience/education to judge, for example, whether the "broad coverage" GA criterion is met for an article about Karl Marx. Sasata (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The process certainly is not perfect. WP:GAR helps sort out some problems, but raising issues here helps people notice unsatisfactory reviews. I have suggested a more formal mentoring system in an earlier thread on this page, WT:Good article nominations#One GA submission, one GA review. That may be a way forward. The note about the reviewer age is illuminating as to this review. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There is another discussion about the reviewer at WT:Good article reassessment#How to question the competence of a reviewer?. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Good point. I think we should add a simple check procedure for GARs: declaring on a GA page created for that purpose you are at least 18 years old. By the way, is there any age rule for administrators? Or do we have 11 years old admins too? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems that this particular reviewer did apply for adminship but did not succeed. I have reinstated the GAN template so your nomination should re-appear, with the original timestamp, shortly. There are a number of issues here which I am glad that you have brought to our attention. I will think about this and may raise a more formal discussion of these issues shortly. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Age limits aren't really going to work. What about stipulating that a GA pass/fail needs 2 reviewers, unless the nominator agrees with the assessment? Rd232 talk 03:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead links

As a side note: WP:DEADREF was recently updated, and reviewers who habitually check for dead links (NB that the GA criteria do not require all URLs to be functional) would do well to have a close look at it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 18 April 2011

The picture of the revelation should be removed because it shows Muhammad (PHUB). This is extremely offensive to Muslims. (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done Wikipedia is not censored, and no person or group has the right to dictate that certain content cannot be included because they don't like it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Credit for GAs

What is the criteria for getting recognition for having made a significant contribution to a Good article? AshLin (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you made a significant contribution to an article, having the article become GA is the recognition. People usually list these things on their user pages. Or do you mean something else? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Should the contribution be in creating and developing it prior to GA (high in the list of significant contributors ) or in getting it approved/shepherded through the GA? AshLin (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That's up to the editors involved to decide. For some things, like the Triple Crown or FOUR awards, the awards process count nominations and contributions in the GAN process only, but that does not mean another editor can't claim credit for their efforts to the article. Imzadi 1979  03:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
We don't give anybody "credit" for GAs. If you think that you played a significant role in the article's successful recognition as meeting the Good article criteria, then you should feel free to say so on your user page. There is no formal process or official recognition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 16 May 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Reference [88] is no longer valid. Please remove the information (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? There are no references on this page (which is Wikipedia:Good articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Portal 2


Is it possible this reviewer was a little hasty in passing the article for GA Talk:Portal_2#GA_Review? Can someone give it a quick look please to see if everything was a clear cut as the reviewer stated.

I appreciate that the reviewer is not a novice Wikieditor but it seems that there were no issues raised, even though I have noted a few on the talk page from the copyedit request that may have caused concern to a more experienced GA reviewer.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Redlink in recent

What happened with Slender smooth hound to produce a redlink here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A missing hyphen. The article is at Slender smooth-hound. Courcelles 20:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Note that the bot messed up, because it was placed onto the list of GA's under the wrong name- [15]. Courcelles 20:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers needed (urgent)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Request_for_reviewers_for_educational_assignments_GANs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Would somebuddy please tell this bot to stop making edits like this? Ø and Å are separate characters with their own right in the Norwegian alphabet and are not diacritical versions of O and A. See User talk:Gyrobo/Archive 4#Alphabetical order for more information. --Eisfbnore talk 20:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to contact the bot owner at User talk:Gimmetrow, I guess the alpha order would need recoding. This problem may occur with other Latin-derived alphabets. --Jezhotwells (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

1 in 299

Congratulations, under 300 at last. We should now be aiming for at least 1in 100.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the process here different than FA?

I'm trying to bring space debris to FA. However, the comments so far have always started off non-specific, "it's good, but not FA". I have been chided for bringing the article to FA without having these problems fixed first, and that I should do GA and PR before going to FA, so as not to waste their time. This suggestion (made twice now by different people) suggests that GA nomination can be used as an improvement process (as opposed to FA). Is this the case? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is different, yes. In short, for FAC you have to modify the article to the wishes of many, in GAN it's just one reviewer looking over the GA criteria, which are a bit more lax particularly on the prose size. Many reviewers will help take an article that isn't yet at GA and bring it to that level. PR is just about making the article better without a raw checklist necessarily. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy note to GA nominators and reviewers

There's an ongoing discussion at DYK talk about whether GAs should be represented in DYKs on the main page. Your views, whether for or against, would be welcome. Tony (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, there's now a fresh proposal by User:Dr. Blofeld that may involve GAs. Tony (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Auditing for close paraphrasing and plagiarism

A lively discussion is occurring at DYK talk on the challenges of auditing for plagiarism and close paraphrasing. This involves all quality assurance processes at WP. Tony (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Where are reviews archived?

Where are GA reviews archived? I would like to review the one that was done for a specific article, but there is no link to it from the article talk page. How do I find it? Thanks in advance.Griswaldo (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, it's on the "/GA1" (or GA2 etc) sub page of the article talk page I think. So for example Doom Bar is on Talk:Doom Bar/GA1 WormTT · (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks!Griswaldo (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC on identifiers

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The random good article link is broken.

It worked yesterday. I was so excited to find it, I bookmarked it. Lo and behold, it's broken today. And it's not that I improperly bookmarked it, either. I followed the link from the good articles page and still got 404'd.

Can Wikipedia actually code a random good or featured article function into the site? It'd be so nice to stumble onto interesting, well-written articles rather than stubs about Soviet townships and subspecies of finches — no offense to those users who find these topics interesting. --StringRay (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC) i love you you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


May I inquire into which category of article one would place biographies of people. I am presently interested in the article on Osama bin Laden, and don't understand where it might fit in after some editing has been done. Carmaskid (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably World History->Asian History if it gets promoted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 31 October 2011

At the beginning of the 2nd para, the word 'presently' is unnecessary:

"Currently, of the 3,783,815 Wikipedia articles, presently 13,113 are categorized as good articles" (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

DoneBility (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Subcategory of one of the articles


Shouldn't IC in a Sunflower be in the "Visual novels, cartoons and manga" and not just the "Works" section? I have no idea how to change that... Bobnorwal (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I have moved it. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly interesting study

File:Wikipedia’s poor treatment of its most important articles.pdf

Concludes with a fair bit of evidence that good articles is not doing a very good job of improving articles wikipedians have decided are important or those that people actually read.©Geni 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat much on what has already been said at WT:FAC, but basically nobody can force us to improve on top-priority articles, just as nobody is going to force me to improve articles on topics that are outside my interest. As far as the benign pigeonholing and compartmentalizing are concerned, pretty much per everybody else at WT:FAC – it's demeaning and outright insulting. –MuZemike 19:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I was surprised at how much energy was spent on hurt feelings over at WT:FAC, and how little on the subject of how to improve Wikipedia, though I suppose this reflects the priorities of the contributors to that project. Just for the record: no-one has ever suggested to "force" anyone to do anything, but suggestions have been made as to how we can make this a better encyclopedia. I think such ideas should be welcomed, personal grievances aside. Lampman (talk) 14:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Spliting over populated categories

Hello, I have been adding some new articles recently and I find the over abundance of most of these categories to be a little annoying. Is there a way we can split some of these up into smaller sub categories? My suggestions:

  1. Split the "Architecture" section into Architecture by continent. (Minimally Americas, Eurasia, and Others; or else by each of the 6 populated continents.)
  2. For recordings, songs, films, and tv shows, perhaps they could be split up by century? One category being 20th century and before, and the other being 21st century? For songs and compositions, there might also be a subcategory for 19th century and before for older classical music compositions.

Ideas? Suggestions? --Tea with toast (話) 02:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest splitting out "television episodes" and "songs and albums" into there own subcategory. Not sure architecture needs splitting, it doesn't often appear overpopulated. Would like to split sport too (maybe biographies). AIRcorn (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I got this confused with the GAN page. As to your real question yes splitting some of the large categories here would be good. It is probably easiest to split song categories by using a date, but there could be some benefit in keeping related songs together. Maybe genre or artist (for those with lots to their name) could be used. This could be used for episodes too (having an X files, Simpsons etc sub-category). Your architecture suggestion seems sound. AIRcorn (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Because some songs/episodes could fall under multiple genres, I think splitting by century would be less controversial. I'm hoping that splitting the architecture articles by location (while maintaining a "general" or "misc." category) would be the most straight forward, but I'd like to get some feedback on this before I go through all the work of sorting them out and then someone comes back to delete all my edits. Any support or objections? --Tea with toast (話) 05:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
No objections from me. I am fine with splitting the songs by years too. The scale might need to be uneven to take into account recentism. A possible example being: pre-1700, 1701-1900, 1901-1950, 1951-1980, 1981-2000, 2001-2010, 2011-2015. For episodes I still think that subdividing by the more popular shows and having a misc for the rest might be a better way to go, but would not revert anyone that also divided them by year. AIRcorn (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This tool [16] might make it easier. It relies on categories, so if a good article has the wrong category it won't pick it up. According to it there are 309 song good articles that were released as singles between 2001 and 2010, so simply using 2000 as the cut off will divide the list roughly in half. AIRcorn (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Split song articles by year. Choose year ranges that give roughly an even number in each section. I have a spreadsheet of songs and the year they were released so it should be relatively easy to change to other ranges. I did the episodes by series as it takes a lot longer to divide by year and I didn't want to do that if this split will do. If someone wants to revert it or change it to years I will not complain. AIRcorn (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

two issues

tao li is wrongly listed as li, tao. for chinese, surnames come first. her surname is tao, not li.

security and intelligence division, is it a ga or not??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Are anons allowed?

Are IP editors allowed to work on and submit good articles? -- (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all editors may participate in writing and submitting Good Articles. Most anon editors find it easier to establish an account to facilitate collaboration with other editors. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Uncategorized articles, again

At the end of November I listed about 30 articles that were not on any of the WP:GA pages. At the end of this month, there were nearly 50. I listed about half, and have created WP:GA/U for the other unsorted articles. Please take care of them. Reviewers need to finish the listing process. If an article is not listed on the various GA pages, then the listing process is not complete, and it doesn't get included in the count for WP:GA/S. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'll get started. A reminder to others doing this to also check the topic parameter in the talk page GA template. —Andrewstalk 04:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
All done, probably best to note this at WT:GAN in future. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Question About Reviewing GAs

I'm part of the X-Files Project, and there are several X-Files episodes in the queue waiting to be reviewed. If I haven't contributed to a certain episode, per the rationale to be a view (but I'm still a member of the project) can I still review it, or is this a conflict of interest?--Gen. Quon (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as you haven't edited an article it's fine. Since you've written other articles it would ideally give you an insight as to what needs to be fixed better. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, dear. I had thought it was "hasn't substantially edited". I did do some edits to fix things I found during a peer review. Is that OK? The article is Metagenomics, and as far as I can tell it passes. Allens (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It is "substantially edited" so you should be fine. Fixing spelling, reverting vandalism, minor format changes etc are allowed to be done by a reviewer. AIRcorn (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Whew... OK, it's in! Thanks! Allens (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

More television episode splitting

I was thinking about creating a subcategory for Family Guy (~90 GA's) and South Park (~30 GA's). What do you guys think? --Maitch (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support I was thinking the same thing... Glimmer721 talk 23:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree! I might just do the South Park ones for now, as I am not too knowledgeable Family Guy. Basilisk4u (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
YesY Done. I think we should consider merging "Other animated episodes" and "Other live action episodes". It was amazing how many episodes were misplaced (how did two Parks and Rec episodes end up in the animation category) and the animation category is not that big now. --Maitch (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have now been going over the "Other" categories and fixed all the misplaced episodes. If I should recommend any other shows for splitting, it would be Seinfeld, Dexter and Homicide: Life on the Streets. Maitch (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I went over the "Other live action" category and counted shows with over 10 episodes. These were:
  1. Seinfeld: 15 episodes
  2. Homicide: Life on the Streets: 14 episodes
  3. Desperate Housewifes: 11 episodes
  4. Dexter: 11 episodes
  5. Will and Grace: 11 episodes
  6. StarGate franchise: 10 episodes
Maitch (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a bit overkill; just splitting those with 20 or 25 GA's at least seems the best route. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Having lots of small categories is probably not any better than having a few large ones. I would merge the live action and animation episodes under a generic "Television episodes" heading (keeping "other live action/other animation" as separate sub-categories though). AIRcorn (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I have been using a couple of hours on moving animated episodes such as The Simpsons out of the live action category and moving episodes from show such as Parks and Recreation and Modern Family away from animation. I think it would be easier for people if there only were one "other" category. --Maitch (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess if it was combined it would only add an extra 40 and still be smaller than the Simpsons. AIRcorn (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Could we change "Doctor Who" to "Doctor Who universe" which would incorporate Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures? I think there's only 4 GAs (Day One (Torchwood), Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (Torchwood), Cyberwoman, and Invasion of the Bane), but at least they'll all be in one place. Glimmer721 talk 23:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Video Games

Why are video games listed under "Everyday life" rather than "Arts"? unless (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Bueller? unless (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Perhaps categorizing the albums (as done for the singles) by the year they were released? Till I Go Home (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not. It does involve a bit of work though. I would suggest sorting them by categories, but you will still have to click on many to find their year of release. AIRcorn (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good Article without images?

May an article pass as a GA without images? See Commons, about which I see:

    • Given its primary function as a supporting project for the other Wikimedia web sites, the main content policy for files uploaded to Commons is that they must be potentially useful on any of the Wikimedia projects. This excludes material such as purely personal pictures and artwork, in contrast to image sharing repositories like Flickr, Photobucket and DeviantArt. Nevertheless, large numbers of files hosted on Commons are not used directly on any Wikimedia project and likely never will be; as such, the project has grown into a repository of multimedia in its own right, which is frequently linked to from articles on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia websites to provide supplemental materials.
    • Most Wikimedia projects still allow local uploads which are not visible to other projects or languages, but this option is meant to be used primarily for material which local project policies allow, but which would not be permitted according to the copyright policy of Commons, such as fair use content. Wikimedia Commons itself does not allow fair use or uploads under non-free licenses, including licenses which restrict commercial use of materials or disallow derivative works. Licenses that are acceptable include the GNU Free Documentation License, Creative Commons Attribution and Attribution/ShareAlike licenses,[1] other free content and free software licenses, and the public domain.
    • The default language for Commons is English, but registered users can customize their interface to use any other available user interface translations. Many content pages, in particular policy pages and portals, have also been translated into various languages. Files on Wikimedia Commons are categorized using MediaWiki's category system. In addition, they are often collected on individual topical gallery pages. While the project was originally proposed to also contain free text files, these continue to be hosted on a sister project, Wikisource. --Philcha (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    Short answer: yes. Long answer: It's not desirable to an article to have no image, but if no free image exists, then it's better not to have one than to force a non-free one in somehow. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks, User:Wizardman. --Philcha (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New page for War and military articles?

Wikipedia:Good articles/History is a huge 126KB page which is hard to sort through, thanks much in part to the 1,800+ Military History articles which are arranged in 300, 400 and 500-article lists which desperately need to be subdivided. The Warships subsection alone is larger than all of the Philosophy and religion and Mathematics pages combined. I'd like to suggest we give MILHIST a separate page of its own so its articles can be better subdivided. Thoughts? —Ed!(talk) 19:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably take care of this myself in the next few days if no one objects here. Trying to be WP:BOLD Just let me know any concerns/thoughts. —Ed!(talk) 20:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It has been mentioned [17] that this page should have similar categories to the WP:GAN one (I just made new Music, Theatre, Sports etc pages to do this). Personally though I won't complain if Military History is given it's own page, but you may want to think about eventually asking for the creation of it's own sub-section at GAN to match it (it is quite a bit of work to do and requires some co-ordination with bots, templates etc). If you go ahead with it here at least GimmeBot (talk · contribs) and the Template:GA/Topic need to be updated (possibly GA bot (talk · contribs) too). AIRcorn (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Correcting topics on talk pages

I've noticed that the topic listed for the GA banners on some talk pages of GA articles are inaccurate and point to the wrong page in the list--especially since "Theatre, film and drama" split from "Arts". Is it possible that a bot could correct this? Glimmer721 talk 19:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Applications for free, full access, 1-year accounts from HighBeam Research officially open

Just a reminder that 1000 free accounts are available from the internet research database HighBeam Research. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Here's the link to the project page: WP:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Sign-up! And, please tell your Wikipedia-friends about the opportunity! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


I have had a few articles passed for GA. So today I decided to do a GA review. I read the article carefully, made lots of notes and felt that I was well up to getting the process under way. I clicked on "follow this link", read the resulting text several times, and eventually gave up as I didn't have a clue about how to proceed. No wonder there's a backlog. Can anyone point me to a step-by-step guide.  Tigerboy1966  16:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you will find a detailed guide at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, check out the See also section and useful tools on that page. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Seriously though: I know what to look for in a GA, I know all the criteria, and I STILL haven't got a clue how to actually do a review. No wonder there's a massive backlog. Tigerboy1966  18:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's an easy way to do it: read the article, jot up your notes, and when you make the /GA1 page just put those notes there. Boom, there's your GA review. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I just felt a bit stupid for having 5 GAs and not being able to do any qpq. I will have a go. Tigerboy1966  19:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


I've worked on most of Rihanna's articles, and I've noticed that non-single and 2010 singles releases from Loud (Rihanna album) are listed in 2010, but singles from the album released in 2011 are in the 2011 section. Shouldn't they all be in 2010 as they were recorded in 2010 and the album was released in 2010? AaronYou Da One 10:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a question for the talk page of that article. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
No it's not. It's a question for here, considering it's here where songs recorded for a 2010 album are for some reason categorized as a 2011 song when released as a single in 2011. AaronYou Da One 00:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Well if they were released in 2011 as singles then it is proper to list them as 2011 songs, but the artic le should mention that they were also release on a 2010 album. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi, the Angel Bakeries recently passed GA and the bot updated its status on the talk page. What about the GA icon on the page itself? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Short articles

There are several articles about X-Files episodes in the backlog and the one I've scanned is quite short, amounting to some 17k only. The GA guidelines say the concept was introduced to cater for short articles which presumably cannot be accepted at FA level but is there a minimum below which a GA candidate would fail because it is too short? --Brian (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

17kb is entirely fine, especially since the episode articles have about 8-10kb of prose. Too short articles would be ones with 2-3kb of prose, since articles that short would have to have more out there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for your reply, Wizardman. --Brian (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoniverse on Wikipedia:Good articles/recent

I'm noticing that Whoniverse is listed on Wikipedia:Good articles/recent but piped as universe, though it doesn't seem to have been through any GA process ever. Does anyone know how it got there? Chris857 (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Random Good Article of the Day

Could we make the Random Good Article of the Day more attractive in some way? At the moment it looks a little lost at the bottom of the page... some way of drawing attention to it would be good. I must admit I never even noticed it until today, but I think it is a good idea. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Boldly done see middle section of Wikipedia:Good articles/Summary, Sadads (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Good stuff - it might attract more attention that way. Thanks. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


Borilla is an animal species from Venus. He landed upon Earth in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the relevance between that and the discussion of good articles? TRLIJC19 (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange). If you have any questions, you can leave me a note on my talk page or email me at Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Law sub-categories

It is very strange in my view to divide "cases and domestic law" from "constitutional and international law." Domestic vs. international makes sense, but the additional modifiers do not. First, international courts decide cases. (Although I am unaware if any articles about such are currently GA.) Second, nearly all constitutional law is domestic law. This is because, with exceptions of things like the so-called "EU constitution," constitutions are national in scope. Some of these cases in the former category interpret national constitutions. And some of the constitutional cases in the latter category concern the law of only one country. Savidan 22:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


I have added dance to Theatre, musical theatre and opera. I am not sure if any bots need to be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Listing of television series + episodes

Hi, everyone. At Wikipedia:Good articles/Theatre, film and drama, there seems to be some errors. Under the "episodes" sub-section, it appears editors have added groups called "TV show series" above the same TV show's episode groups. For example, there is "Grey's Anatomy series"; with the main article and several of its seasons and characters included, and then there is "Grey's Anatomy episodes"; with its episodes listed. There are also some Grey's Anatomy characters listed in the proper section, which makes the whole list inconsistent. Another example is "Lost series"; with several characters listed, and then "Lost' episodes'"; with the show's episodes listed. This should not be grouped this way, because it is an episode sub-section, so why would characters and seasons be included? I do not remember it being listed this way in the past, so maybe an editor recently changed it? It is a bit puzzling, and I hope to hear the opinions of other users. TRLIJC19 (talkcontribs) 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some editor changed it quite a while ago now. Its been bothered me for a while, but I'm too lazy to fixed all of it :0 We should get it fixed now though. TBrandley 02:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll gladly clean it up. Glad to hear I'm not the only one who realized the problem with it. TRLIJC19 (talkcontribs) 02:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
There should be a television section and a film section, with episodes as a part of the television section. Right now, film and television material are combined in "characters" and "live action" subsections, which are all getting large and difficult to scan, and some were in "animation". Putting articles about the same series (series, episodes, characters) into a section is a reasonable way to organize them. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that whole listing needs a revamp. But putting characters and seasons under an episode subsection doesn't make sense. TRLIJC19 (talkcontribs) 03:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It would end up being called "television". Gimmetoo (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea to make two sections of television and film. TRLIJC19 (talkcontribs) 05:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought that the "X series" headings were quite useful. I'm also wondering if we're approaching the need to spin teevee stuff out as a separate entity. It's certainly a sizeable enough topic to merit it but I'm wondering if there would be enough non-teevee articles left behind to hold their own. GRAPPLE X 12:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Gimmetoo, why did you change it back to how it originally was? That was not the consensus here. As I've said; television shouldn't be under episodes. Are you doing further reconstruction later? Not to mention you missed a bunch of stuff. For example, Grey's Anatomy has a bunch of character GAs that aren't listed at the 'Grey's Anatomy series' group. I hope you plan on revamping the page. TRLIJC19 (talkcontribs) 15:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I changed it back for now. I do agree that there should be two section, one "television" and one "film". All television stuff shouldn't be under "Episodes" that is for "Episodes", not shows as explained. TBrandley 15:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, I see tons of two/three article GA sub-sections on there. TBrandley 15:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's quyite enough. We have two editors explicitly agreeing to split television and film: TRLIJC19 ("I think it's a good idea to make two sections of television and film") and Grapple ("I thought that the "X series" headings were quite useful."). Considerable work has already been done fixing and organizing the page. i am particularly troubled by the people who cannot get past that the section may be called "episodes" for a while until most of the television-related articles are split off. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't necessarily have a problem with the episodes subtitle; it's that it is inconsistent. For example, there are many characters not listed under 'Grey's Anatomy series', and others. Until it can be majorly revamped, I think it should stay as it is; not with the series' title. I do like the idea of splitting television and film, but not when everything is inconsistent. TRLIJC19 (talkcontribs) 16:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. If everything related to "television", is under there, then it would be fine. But for now, everything related to television isn't all in one section. TBrandley 17:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Then why undo the work that's already been done? Gimmetoo (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
If no one else wants to; I'll revamp the page when I can find a free hour. But until then, I think it would be confusing to readers of the page for it to be inconsistent. TRLIJC19 (talkcontribs) 17:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for you to access free research databases!

The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

  • Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
  • HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
  • Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Now, go sign up! Ocaasi t | c 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


I've opened a section here about adding to the MoS that infoboxes are optional, in case anyone would like to comment. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"Theatre, film and drama" section change proposal

I would like to propose changing the "Theatre, film and drama" section to "Theatre, film and television," to make the category more clear (and to match the same category at Wikipedia:Release Version). Right now "Theatre" and "drama" are redundant, and the section ignores television's prevalence in the section. Subsequently, I propose new subsections of "Theatre," "Film," "Television," and "Radio and other." If there is consensus, I would make these changes here and at Wikipedia:Good article nominations and would coordinate with User:Chris G to make sure changes don't disrupt the GA bot. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions? Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Honest question here: is it particularly desirable to make GA conform to the Release Version categories?
I don't have any huge attachment to the current form, but when you lose "drama", I'm not sure how radio remains attached to this category, as it isn't theatre, film, or television, three very distinct categories, but there is definitely radio drama. (Lots else, too, but it's the nose under the tent.) Currently, this topic is supposed to cover Television, plus "Actors, models, performers and celebrities; Animation; Cinema; Fictional characters and technologies; Films; Radio; Theatre, musical theatre and opera". A recent attempt was made to get it to cover Dance, which strikes me as still desirable, assuming we do make changes. I'm not sure I like "Radio and other": perhaps another catch-all category could be named. (I'm guessing that "Other" is too general.) Whatever we decide on for the subtopics, we need to come up with a sublist from the above so people know which subtopic to use. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
"Theatre, film, television, and other media"? As it stands, "Theatre, film and drama" does not adequately call attention to television, which is one of the largest groups of the topic. Regarding the "Radio and other" subtopic idea, what would you suggest? -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps something like "Theatre, film, television, and other dramatic media", which excludes unaffiliated "media". It's awfully long, though; someone else may have a more concise idea. It does allow for the "other" topic to be called "Other dramatic media", which covers dance, radio, opera, and by whatever logic was used before, models and celebrities. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
What about just "Drama" as the main section title? Film, Television, Radio, Theater, may all be subsections. Cambalachero (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
That would work. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

(adjusting indent) How about "Media and drama" for the main section, with "Film," "Television," "Theatre, dance and opera," and "Radio and other media" "Other media" as subsections? Just "Drama" isn't as clear, as one doesn't normally categorize film, for example, as drama. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think "radio" will be down in the noise and should not have its own heading; why not just "Other media" if you don't like "Other dramatic media"? It would, I imagine, also cover things like webisodes and other YouTube offerings, assuming they're notable... BlueMoonset (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
"Other media" works for me. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Note that we already have "Media and journalism" under "Social sciences and society". Perhaps we should refine the sections and place works of fiction on one side (TV series, episodes, characters, films) and non-fiction stuff on other side (documentaries, real people, TV channels, newspapers, general concepts, etc.) Cambalachero (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I never saw that section! This problem seems so much larger now: for example, why are Blue's Clues and Big Brother 11 (U.S.) at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Media when Format of Sesame Street/Sesame Street research and The X Factor (UK series 7) at Wikipedia:Good_articles/Theatre, film and drama? There is no clear distinction between the sections. I now believe that some articles at the "Media and journalism" subsection (like Blue's Clues) should be moved to the Television one currently at "Theatre, film and drama." And "Media and journalism" should probably be renamed "Non-fiction media and journalism" and the "Theatre, film and drama" section should be named "Fiction media and drama." Or something clearer. Any thoughts? -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Assistance requested in categorizing an article

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Calling a vote for unclassified article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"This is a good article"

Isn't that a wee bit ballsy? Who are we to say that everybody must agree that an article is "good"? Imho, the mouseover for the GA icon should read "This article has been classified as good" or something along those lines. Just a thought. -- (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no such requirement that everybody must agree that an article is "good". The assessment is usually made by one person against the criteria, but other editors can be contribute, and the decision to "pass" or "fail" ("listed" or "not list") is made by one person (and the username of that person is recorded). Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)



should the album section in Wikipedia:Good articles/Music be split into pre-1990s and contemporary like the songs section below? Regards.--Kürbis () 08:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Calakmul listed twice

I just noticed that Calakmul is listed under "Archaeology and archaeologists" and also under "North American history" - all the other Maya archaeological sites that I have brought to GA are just listed under the former, so I suspect it strayed into North Am. history section by accident. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of GA Reviewer authority

The GA review for the Saga (comic book) was prematurely closed not based on any of the issues raised, but in retaliation for a comment I made that reviewer, Malleus Fatuorum, took offense to. Every correction or suggestion that the Malleus Fatuorum raised prior to then, I implemented. In cases where I required clarification of Malleus Fatuorum's point, I requested it. In instances where I did not know how to address the issue, I requested suggestions. In cases where I disagreed with the issue raised, or where I felt his statement was incorrect, I presented polite arguments for this, such as citing dictionary entries when Malleus Fatuorum disagreed with the proper use of a given word. (I assume this is permitted, and that reviewers are not to be taken as infallible gospel, right?) However, I leveled one bit of constructive criticism on October 23 toward the reviewer, albeit worded with a bit of levity (at least, that's what I was going for; I may have failed in that regard). Malleus Fatuorum pointed out this passage in the article: "The first issue was widely acclaimed in publications such as including Publishers Weekly...", and commented, "Which do you want? 'Such as' or 'including'?" I thought that this was unnecessary, since the reviewer could have simply fixed this himself, not because he was under any obligation to, but because he had already demonstrated a willingness to make a large series of edits to the article, so bringing up this error seemed to me to waste more effort than merely fixing itself. The reviewer responded with an October 23, 23:08 message, "...if you're not happy with the way I've conducted this review than I'll be quite happy to fail it..." This was rather petty, but what is more egregious is that on October 25, just twenty-eight hours later, Malleus Fatuorum retaliated to my comment by closing the review, stating that I had "no intention of addressing" the most recent issues, and later stated on his talk page that I was "consistently and aggressively uncooperative right from the start" of the review. This is false, and a check of both the article's edit history and the GA Review page will show that I engaged in constructive exchanges with the reviewer. To close the review for such reasons is inexcusable, and a clear abuse of his power as GA Reviewer. Nightscream (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair Nightscream you picked the worst possible time to confront him over it. He has a lot on his plate at the moment. No offence but if you were up for a wiki ban you might not want to continue the review either.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Good article reviews are a collaboration between the nominator and the reviewer, when that breaks down the best solution is to just end the review. There is no abuse of authority that I can see, by authority I am assuming you just mean the ability to pass or fail the article. AIRcorn (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


This article is well deserving of its GA status. However, Bentworth's most famous resident insists on adding clutter and multiple photos in the left to lead and adding some strange paragraph structures. Against GA guidelines, please watch and help protect the quality of this.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Will put it on my watchlist until my next big cleanout. AIRcorn (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference CCL was invoked but never defined (see the help page).