Wikipedia talk:Good articles

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

Good article reassessment backlog[edit]

There is a backlog of articles waiting for community reassessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, and DragonZero informs me that they're the only editor who has been closing these for the past year or so. That doesn't seem fair to me, so assistance from other editors would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


It seems that a reviewer for an article that I nominated has disappeared. Would anyone care to take a look? RGloucester 15:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you are right; I wonder if you scared them off. I see however that they are very active elsewhere and that you have not tried to contact them. Could you please send positive statements their way, encouraging them to return? If that does not work, you will have to reset and try again; I can help you with the necessary paperwork if that is needed. Good luck. Prhartcom (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The user has not responded to my talk page query. I do not see why I should have to reset. The article was in the queue for months prior to being picked up. RGloucester 17:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I've posted a reminder about your message on their talk page, just in case they missed or forgot your message. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
He's asked for someone else to complete the review, as he's occupied. RGloucester 18:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester, I am glad to see the reviewer has returned. It is of course understandable when a reviewer becomes busy in their personal life, but I hope that they can remain committed for the week it should take to complete this review. I was looking over the editing experience of this reviewer and they seem competent and capable. As well, their comments on your GA1 page are all reasonable. I notice with concern, however, that occasionally your responses toward their comments do not convey a positive attitude nor are they conducive to a good working relationship. If I were them I would be turned off by some of those responses while reviewing your work and might look for an excuse to work elsewhere. While I notice that all your responses are factually correct and you have good reasons to push back, please accept my suggestion to keep your responses neutral or in a more positive, respectful tone. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. A reviewer must respond to my queries. If a reviewer makes up nonsense out of thin air, without providing citations of relevant policies/guidelines, I will demand an explanation. There is no need for "positivity", only severity. RGloucester 15:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. You are of course welcome to be severe, but my sincere suggestion was only to politely request, rather than demand. With the greatest respect, please consider the probable reason you were forced to come to this page for assistance in the first place. I truly hope the review goes well. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I was forced to come to this page because of the incompetence of a reviewer. If he cannot answer my queries in a timely fashion, he should not be reviewing articles. If one undertakes a responsibility, one must complete it. None of my remarks have been "uncivil". They have simply probed for answers that have not yet been provided. RGloucester 15:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

add the USA sales so far are[edit]

why is this article locked ?

to the commercial section add that as of jan 2015 she has sold 1.56 million copies in usa. here is the source . (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC), this talk page is for discussing the list of Good Articles, not individual articles (and you don't specify which article you are talking about in any case). I suggest that you take this up on the talk page of the relevant article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Bharat Ratna[edit]

Bharat Ratna was listed as a good article by the now banned user AmritasyaPutra, who did not list it under a category at Wikipedia:Good articles/all. They put |topic=Culture, sociology and psychology in {{GA}} on Talk:Bharat Ratna, but I'm unsure exactly where the article would go. Could someone else please work out where the article fits and then add it to the list, updating the talk page template if necessary? Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done @Bilorv: It belongs to the Organizations and events subtopic and I've added it there, so no need to update the talk template. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Review of Negative resistance[edit]

The reviewer at Talk:Negative resistance/GA1 has put the article on hold and declared that he will not pass the article for reasons he admits himself are not part of the GA criteria (principally over-referencing). He has also declared that he will hand over to another reviewer. There is a discussion of the issue at the user's talk page. Comments? SpinningSpark 22:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Query about GAN and WP:OVERCITE. SpinningSpark 07:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)