Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:00, 3 January 2009

• WT:GAN

This talk page should be used for discussions relating to the nominating and reviewing of Good article nominations. Please direct any comments regarding the improvement of the GA program as a whole to WikiProject Good Articles. Thank you.

Archives

18 March 2006 – 15 April 2006 15 April 2006 – June 3 2006 April 2006 – Jun 2006 Jun 2006 – Aug 2006 Sept 2006 – April 2007 April 2007 – July 2007 July 2007 – September 2007 September 2007 – February 2008 February 2008 – May 2008 May 2008 – September 2008 October 2008 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

GA review reform

Some of you may remember that, back in the summer, the GA reform working party looked at the way GA reviews are carried out. We regularly hear concerns about issues such as inconsistent review quality, reviewer experience, the transparency of the process and so on, and our aim was to come up with a new process that—while keeping our strengths—reduces or eliminates the weaknesses. A draft proposal was posted for community review; the resulting debate can be found in the archives here.

Taking account of the feedback we received, we've re-drafted the original proposal and would like to place it before the GA community for approval. The process set out below is intended as a replacement for the current review process—in brief, we believe it has the advantages of retaining our collaborative, unbureaucratic approach to reviewing, while providing for increased input from reviewers, encouraging new reviewers to participate, and ensuring every article nominated gets a fair treatment.

Open review proposal

• The GA review process is started by the first reviewer to leave comments on an article's GA sub-page. By doing so, they become the lead reviewer for that article.

• With the review now open, other GA reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to participate and leave additional comments on the review sub-page.

• The review should remain open for at least 3 days; this can be extended according to the lead reviewer's judgement.

• The lead reviewer is responsible for closing the review—either when a reasonable time period has elapsed, or when they believe all the review comments have been satisfactorily addressed. They will then promote or fail the article.

Please indicate your opinion below; additional comments or questions are welcome! Per standard practice, consensus will be determined by weight of argument.

Support

1. Strong support. I think, given its increasing size and importance across Misplaced Pages and the dedication of our reviewers, we need to stop providing GA's detractors with ammunition to knock our credibility as a quality review process. EyeSerene 11:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong support - The more people looking at the articles, the better. This still keeps one person in charge of the review, but it can potentially boost quality. We may not see an immediate change in the way reviews are done, but even if this opens a new door and reviewers begin to peek in, it's an improvement. Baby steps. Also, I still am not inclined to resume reviewing articles in full, but I would enjoy joining open reviews and dropping a few comments. لennavecia 14:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. I can't improve on what Eyeserene and Jennavecia said. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. Can't see it doing any harm, and it may do some good in encouraging reviewers who may not want the responsibility of deciding the outcome of a review to nevertheless take part in it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. This isn't actually a big change. In many ways it is no change. Editors can comment on review pages now, and they may influence the reviewer. Primarily, this proposal is a shift in attitude to encourage lead reviewers to seek and receive input before making their decision if they want to. They are perfectly at liberty not to seek such input, or to ignore it. The lead reviewer decides. Power and responsibility hand-in-hand.

   The fundamental principle of GA is "one reviewer decides". I have and will defend that principle at every opportunity, because it is a key reason why GA benefits the encyclopedia: GA growth is linear, FA growth is static. GA should never become FA-lite, otherwise it is pointless, but it should evolve towards better practice, where each decision is informed by as much information as possible, Geometry guy 23:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

6. Support. This is simple refinement of the current ethos of GA. It allows the reviewer-editor relationship while encouraging further imput, a forum for new reviewers or those who haven't time to complete a full review, but can help out by checking sources or images or other opinion. It also eliminates the "driveby" or "you-scratch-my-back" reviews. Gwinva (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. You got me. I'm supporting because, as Gwinva says, "This is simple refinement". It really isn't all that different, of the proposals listed above, only the third is a departure from the current system. While I think it is great that we are encouraging new editors to participate in GA reviews by just chipping in with comments, I can't seriously see that happening. But then, how is that any different to now? So, I'm supporting because it's certainly worth a shot. But, if it doesn't, then we should repeal it. Meet back in mid-May. Apterygial 10:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. I can't improve on what Eyeserene Jennavecia and Dan said. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Support I am genuinely mystified how some of my colleagues, whose good sense and perceptions I respect and admire, are drawn to the conclusion that this proposal 'adds' a layer of bureaucracy or renders the nomination process more complex. Viewing this proposal from a policy and procedure perspective, there seems to be fewer objects to write about, for notions such as 'second opinion' and placing articles 'on hold' have been integrated into the ideas that all articles have a minimum open period (subsuming the heretofore distinct idea of putting an article on hold) and that reviewers can contribute to other reviewers efforts, subsuming the idea of second opinions. I also fail to see how this proposal exacerbates the problem of too few reviewers. On the contrary, it seems to me, the editor who does not have the time to conduct a review now has a way to contribute in a less time intensive way, so his or her input is garnered for the project. Some colleagues opine that Good Article reviews may very well turn into FAC jr. Writing on my own account, if I was a lead reviewer and found my review collecting collections of unsubstantiated 'support per nom' or 'oppose per foobar' I would disregard it as background noise. I suppose if I got ambitious enough, I would drop notes on peoples' talk pages suggesting that a contribution to a review I've taken a lead on should entail at least one analytical sentence on how a nomination is at variance with at least one Good Article criterion. Insofar as a review becoming 'bogged down' over disagreements, the solution and appeal routes are both plain. The lead reviewer decides. Members of the loyal opposition may appeal the decision at the Good Article Review. I appreciate the comments that manifestly obvious good articles wind up swimming in the tank for a bit. I do not regard that as big a problem as the one on the opposite side of the coin, flimsy articles passed in a New York minute; quick passing, as well as quick failing damages the integrity of the Good Article marque more often than not and undermines those who contribute genuinely thoughtful reviews. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per the reasons stated by myself and others in the Neutral section. Sorry, but while this sounds like a reasonable proposal, the last thing we need is more instruction creep. –Juliancolton 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Actually, if this goes forward, I see it as an opportunity to reduce instruction creep. The open review process gives the lead reviewer flexibility. Who says holds should last 7 days? Most holds don't. Why do we need to regulate how long holds last, or formalize requests for a second opinion? This proposal allows reviewers to manage their reviews as they think best. Geometry guy 20:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   (comment). Is Geometry guy opposing, the statement above looks like a yes not a no?Pyrotec (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   No, I am responding to an oppose. I prefer to add my own view after I have read the concerns of other editors. I believe this to be good practice per WP:CONSENSUS. Geometry guy 20:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Thanks.Pyrotec (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose This is too much bureaucracy for the GA level; I see the point, and I think the motives are valid (I don't like it when new users review GAs), but this isn't the solution. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose The system is broken, but this is not the right way to fix it. ayematthew ✡ 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
4. I really like the idea in theory. But in practice, I see way too many problems. First off, we simply do not have the quantity of reviewers to pull this off, and if you take a look, those that are tagged as second opinion always hang around for months. Second, if we have disagreements between reviewers then it just slows down everything, making it unfair for the article writer. Third, it would turn us into FAC jr. in a sense, which we do not need to do. Wizardman 21:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose The benefits do not outweigh the added bureaucracy. Aberrancies can be, and are, dealt with as they arise. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   What is the "added bureaucracy"? It seems pretty much like no change from current best practice to me. Encourage additional reviewers, discourage quickfails, but still keep the process agile. What's not to like? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Mandatory 3 days? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Why is that a problem? It provides a minimal level of quality-control, and even if an article is then failed once the three days are up, the nominator has at least been given an opportunity to respond to the review per current best practice. The sole reason GA exists is to improve article quality, and I think we need to be doing everything we can (within reason!) to help those editors keen enough to use our project. EyeSerene 09:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

6. Oppose - My big fear is that it will turn into a FAC-like experience. The way it is now, a reviewer has to put in a lot of work to do a GA review. The times I have responded to a "Second opinion" have also involved much work to justify. If reviewers were encouraged to "pop in" with ease and therefore with less weighty opinions (without thorough thought and justification), it might turn more into an FAC "counting the Supports" situation. Perhaps someone can reassure me this will not happen. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   This is why we clearly defined the role of the lead reviewer - the last thing we want is FA-lite! All additional opinions would be welcome, but it would be up to the lead reviewer's discretion to decide whether or not they are sufficiently grounded in WP:WIAGA to justify extending or even failing the assessment. I know I've missed things on articles I've reviewed, and comments such as "Source X looks a bit iffy" or "Sentence Y probably needs a citation" would have been useful to me ;) EyeSerene 09:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

7. Oppose - These changes appear to have been "biased" towards marginal GANs that are heading towards a possible failure. On this basis holding the review open for a minimum of three days provides an opportunity for interested editors to improve the candidate. Fair enough perhaps, but why presumption of failure? The majority of the candidates do not fail. A "Good Article", under these guidelines cannot be declared a GA-pass until three days after the review has been opened!! I fail to see how this can shorten the GAN waiting lists, improve the quality, or motivate editors and GA reviewers.Pyrotec (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose - While I appreciate the effort, I think this will discourage people from becoming the main GA reviewer. The way the system is set up right now, other reviewers can chime in during the review period if the article is placed on hold for changes to be fixed. Why make an editor (who is likely planning to improve other articles to GA when the review is done) wait three days if their article is perfectly fine? This change appears that it would both slow the reviewing of GA articles, and the production of GA articles. Do we really want that? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Unnecessary change, seemingly for the sake of change. This is most definitely adding more bureacracy, and I don't think the benefits will come close to outweighing the harm done to the process. I certainly wouldn't be willing to review articles in such a complicated manner. As it stands now, we have the GA sweeps and people keep an eye on the GAN page. When suspicious passes are noticed, they are reverted or discussed here. If a poor quality GA is noticed at any time, people should know to go to GAR or discuss it here. The main page proclaims that "anyone can edit", not that "anyone can edit, but then a process will be initiated in which other editors will scrutinize the work done to ensure that it meets a certain standard, at which point the edit will be accepted, leaving the initial editor free to repeat the process if he or she hasn't been turned off by the lack of trust demonstrated by the close analysis of what was intended to be a helpful contribution." GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose. The only real change being suggested is waiting 3 days before making a decision. That's an arbitrary time and has nothing to do with the quality of the review. Adding extra time will not of itself improve quality, simply delay activity. Somebody can spend an intense 3 hours on a review and explain in detail with helpful links why an article has failed and how to improve the article. Another person can open a review and do sod all for four weeks. What has time got to do with anything? SilkTork * 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, at this stage: With the current backlog, I don't see how a system which requires the input of more reviewers, and seemingly more work, is feasible. However, I'm happy to move to a support !vote if the backog issue is 'addressed' (so to speak), or if anyone can argue effectively that this proposal could solve both issues (backlog and quality). Apterygial 12:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   The proposal encourages rather than requires additional reviewers - what we didn't want to end up with was FA-lite, or to introduce bottlenecks that would exacerbate the backlog :P The intention is to promote a non-intrusive and collaborative form of quality-control; the open review and the three-day minimum should prevent drive-by reviews and discourage inappropriate reviewers and poor reviews. Increasing our pool of reviewers is my preferred way of addressing the backlog, but with all the templates, criteria, multiple page updates etc, GA reviewing isn't the easiest task to just pick up. Providing newbies with a safe and welcoming way to get involved, under the eye of a more experienced reviewer, will certainly make things easier for them and I hope result in a long-term payoff. EyeSerene 13:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   But it will still worsen backlog. Ruslik (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   We can speculate on the likely effect, but one of the key ideas of the proposal is to encourage new reviewers. The backlog issue is not going to be solved by tweaking "stipulation x" or "process y". It is only going to be addressed by ensuring that reviewer numbers grow in proportion to nominations. Reviewer numbers have been growing, but not fast enough. This proposal may actually help. Geometry guy 20:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   I'm still not entirely sure. For me, this system doesn't seem all that different to what we already have. People don't come along and comment now, my view is that it will just be the lead reviewer sitting there waiting for someone, anyone, to come along and comment. And it may not be all that welcoming; newbies may be afraid that their ideas don't count for anything because they don't seem to have any say in the final decision. Finally, I don't know about you, but I kind of like the one-on-one way the current system works: the nominator and the reviewer working together to improve an article. You said that you wanted to avoid FA-lite, I'm afraid you may have found it. Apterygial 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   I agree. Actually I don't think this proposal is significantly different from what we have now. It is a different way of looking at what we have now, which might actually lead to better practice. If you have enjoyed one-on-one, I think you've been lucky. GANs involving just two editors are the easiest ones to handle. Geometry guy 23:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   ...and very rewarding, as Apterygial says ;) As noted above though, the lead reviewer should still perform their review as normal, and unlike FA the article still passes or fails at their discretion. This proposal is intended to make learning the GA review process and performing quality reviews easier - perhaps not so much for our experienced reviewers, but certainly for new or less-experienced reviewers. I think we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by giving it a try. EyeSerene 10:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

   Neutral - I agree with Apterygial (talk · contribs) that more instruction creep would worsen the persistent backlog. Also, GA is supposed to be a light process, and having multiple reviewers is FAC-esque. I don't know, I guess it could work, but reviewing GANs have become somewhat of a chore; I liked the days when one could open a thread on a talk page and preform the review right then and there. –Juliancolton 14:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Neutral - I can't see "secondary" reviwers turning up very often, because we're short of reviewers. --Philcha (talk)
3. Neutral, lean Oppose The reviews have always been open. What's the point? And will add another layer of instructions, etc. Ling.Nut 17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Yes they have, in theory. How many actually get any secondary input though? True, that's partly due to the shortage of reviewers, but also I think due to an understandable reluctance to give the impression of 'muscling in' uninvited on someone else's review. The difference here is we're actively welcoming and encouraging it, while clearly defining roles to keep the lead reviewer in charge. I suspect many reviews under the proposed system would still be solo affairs, but formally welcoming other reviewers into the process can only benefit review quality. Re your other point, this is intended to replace, rather than add to, the current instructions. EyeSerene 17:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral I'd be worried that this may lead to GA becoming FA lite. However, I see the benefits that it could encourage more people to help out with reviews who wouldn't normally, and also more eyes on a review lead to a better verdict, and potentially reduce the backlog. Peanut4 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Neutral Doesn't this statement already provide encouragement for further reviewers on GAN? "Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome)." I'm unsure of the benefits of the proposed changes; I don't really see any problems either but surely additional policy should have clear benefits? I think drive-by reviews haven't been a problem as of late anyway. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Neutral, as per comments from Sillyfolkboy above, adding the "On review" template under the GAN entry already provides encouragement for other reviewers to contribute. I'm less certain about the need for this mandatory three-day period.Pyrotec (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Neutral but unfortunately I am leaning toward oppose. I appreciate and understand what the working party is trying to do, but I think that the GA process is confusing enough for new reviewers and I don't think this is going to improve things, only delay the passage of many articles that are good enough at first review. Although I don't have a solution to the issue of recruiting new reviewers (mentoring perhaps), I think there is a simple way to ensure that reviews are of consistent quality without imposing any delay or extra "paperwork": make all reviews appear at the top of the GA page for 48 hours after they pass. This way anyone looking at the page can see the newest reviews and those that don't measure up can instantly be put through WP:GAR to ensure they meet the requirements.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Neutral and skeptical. The idea might work, but it sounds cumbersome. I am agreeable to a limited test to see if the concept works. Majoreditor (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions

1. Question: Will there be an expectation of the lead reviewer, as there currently is for the sole reviewer, to review the article thoroughly against all GA criteria? Because if there is, I don't see much of a functional difference, beyond the requirement to leave it open three days (which I think most are anyway). If there isn't, I'm concerned that will see reviews opened, but never completed for want of reviewer comments. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   In short, yes, the lead reviewer would review as thoroughly as possible ;) You're right, in most ways there is no functional difference. The difference is, I think, more in emphasis - additional reviewers (while not required) are actively encouraged to take a look at the article. If they spot nothing, fine. If they do though, we end up with a better overall review. The other big benefit is that new reviewers can be encouraged to wet their feet by participating in a existing reviews until they feel ready to take on the lead role. EyeSerene 12:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   Well then, I have no objection to this proposal. I'm still skeptical as to how much good it will do, because it doesn't really seem like we have an abundance of GA reviewers that might lead to multiple reviewers per article, but if formalizing a three day window and nominally encouraging multiple reviewers will help the GA brand be taken more seriously, it's fine with me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

2. Does "The review should remain open for at least 3 days" mean no quick fails? I would be quite happy if it did mean that, as some editors respond quickly and are willingto work hard at imprving artciles? --Philcha (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

   I believe so, yes, and no 'quick-passes' either, though I'm open to correction by the other proposers. However, we could still handle utterly unsuitable articles or drive-by noms, as currently, on a case-by-case basis. EyeSerene 17:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another question

• What happens when the reviewers adamantly don't agree? Suppose the "lead reviewer" points out some flaws. Two other reviewers disagree vigorously and recommend listing the article as GAN. Or visa versa. Will this increase GARs? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  It might, but I don't regard that as a bad thing. Since the introduction of review subpages, the number of GARs has dropped significantly. The initial decision is up to the lead reviewer, but that can certainly be challenged at GAR, just as it can be now. My observation is that an increase in accountability actually reduces the number of GARs. But GAR can certainly cope with more reassessments (there used to be dozens, but now there is typically only a handful). Geometry guy 20:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  I did the GAR review on Western Wall - see Talk:Western Wall/GA1 - I was expecting a possible rough ride. I still think my decisions were valid.Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  I looked at Talk:Western Wall/GA1 and couldn't figure out what happened there regarding the GAR? It occurred in the middle of the GA? The only ones I have experienced are Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Brenda Song/1 and Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1 - both of which seemed inefficient. I would not get involved in one again I don't think. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  It continues on the talk:Western Wall. I think some people find what the expect to find, even when it is not necessarily there.Pyrotec (talk)

  I don't understand what you mean in your comment above, Pyrotec. If people only find what they expect, then what is the point of having GARs. Or am I missing your point? I don't understanding having a GAR in the middle of a GA. I just checked talk:Western Wall and see the article is listed as GA. Odd situation. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  Woops, I see the problem I was not referring to Good Article Reassessment (GAR) I was using "GAR" as shorthand for GA review. My GA reviews tend to be split into three: initial review, problems and "holds", and summary and sentence. I hope that clarifies the first point.Pyrotec (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  (unindent so as not to disrupt the subthread) Those two GARs were very untypical and neither should have gone on for so long. If no one else can, or no one complains, I will move such GARs along more expediently in the future. Geometry guy 23:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for doing so in those two cases! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Getting editors interested in reviewing

Upon asking for reviews in the past, I've often gotten replied like "I'm too lazy" or "I don't know how to go about doing so." To eliminate this type of problem, I wonder if an automated review-type sheet would be better. My suggestion would be the type of pop-up used with Twinkle, for reporting users, requesting protection and deletion, etc.

To open a review, an editor would click on the link to the page, which would bring them to an automated pop up. On the pop-up, there would be drop-down lists and text boxes. Each drop-down box would be for a specific article quality (ex. images, prose, references). In the drop-down box can be things comments (ex. Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor). Next to each drop-down box would be a text box where specific comments about the topic (images, prose, references...) could be made. It is an idea, and would be a work to get the coding and other issues banged out. ayematthew ✡ 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would support that because that is one of the main reasons I stopped GA Reviewing. But how would this come about?--SRX 23:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• How would that differ from the template? The complaint about the template is that it encourages the supperfical types of reviews that have give GAs such a bad name. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): The prose stinks but is acceptable b (MoS): Only a few violations so it passes

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): More, rather than less, accurate b (citations to reliable sources): They are to books so I am assuming good faith. c (OR): See previous comment.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): yes b (focused): yes

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: I think the same way so I can't tell.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Yes, but I don't know much about fair use rationales b (appropriate use with suitable captions): They seem fine.

7. Overall: A GA article

   Pass/Fail:

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't help but feel that any popups or anything would just lead to more disconnected superficiality. Apterygial 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Although that template seems fine, it's the fact that it seems like more work. Whether people think it's a stupid reason for not reviewing or not, it's a reason people stop reviewing. A quick easy-looking way to conduct a review would certainly get me reviewing a lot more :) ayematthew ✡ 00:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that reviewing a GA is work. Any "quick easy-looking way" defeats the purpose of a quality review, to my way of thinking. When the reviews are superficial, then the FAC reviewers complain, because many editors take their article right to FAC, thinking that a GA review actually means something. That has been a problem in the past and that is why FAC complain that GA is at best useless, and mostly bad and misleading! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the open review proposal above is a good way to encourage new editors. It can indeed be daunting to look at the GAN page and instructions, but being invited to look at current open reviews and make a comment provides an easy way in for people. After contributing to a few, they may find they understand the process and criteria enough to have a go themselves. Gwinva (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, GA reviews should not be about filling in a couple of blanks on a form to fill in part of the process towards FAC. Indeed, process 1 on the pass procedure, says to explain how the article can be improved. Peanut4 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Matisse, the problem you pose can just as simply be solved by reducing FA criteria to a point where mere mortals have a chance at succeeding if they follow directions. With millions--millions!--of articles, FA is an inordinate waste of time and drain on resources. Misplaced Pages would be a better place if all the FA participants took a month off from FA work and devoted all their effort to making mediocre articles good, rather than good articles great. Of course, they wouldn't be able to refer to WP:DASH all that often, but I'm sure most of them would survive. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Mere mortals passing FAC! WP:DASH to you!! (Or, up your WP:DASH!) —Mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I could see how a pop-up style GA review would both encourage new editors and simplify reviews. To be honest, I don't even know what a real GA review is supposed to be like. Just looking at the recent history we can see that approaches range from the concise, to the well ordered, from the dialogue pow-wow to the anally specific. This is perhaps one of GA's best features: the ability to transform itself in the face of various needs. A pop-up menu "(pass/fail/other)" style would severely restrict this. Perhaps we could use an auto-review popup to encourage a thorough reviewing style somehow? (Rather than: "Prose= Y comment= No speeling errors") At the moment the templates are very helpful, if slightly cumbersome. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have never used the template in GA reviews, and I probably never will. Why? Because this template may tell you (the article writer) that something is wrong, but not where and how it can be fixed. Writing up prose improvement notes takes considerably longer than filling out the template, but the article will be so much better afterwards, and the article editor may learn something and avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future. What has my reply to do with "Getting editors interested in reviewing"? Nothing, except if we want more lousy and lazy editors for reviews. (I submitted four successful GANs before I felt comfortable to do my first GA review, and nothing could have piqued my interest before. That's the unfortunate game, but at least none of my GA reviews sucked... I hope.) – sgeureka 18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The template can be the basis of a good conveersation and instructions on how to make an article meet the criteria. Talk:Bunnies & Burrows/GA1 and Talk:Gary Gygax/GA1 are a couple of mine that I've used in that fashion--actually, any of my recent ones tend to use the template in this narrative way. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree, but I usually summarize all points with "Broad in its coverage, stability, neutrality, MOS, sourcing all check out. Image XYZ could be problematic though." Maybe I always get lucky with my GANs to reviews, but an article either fails many of the WIAGA points, or nearly none, so why bother with a template that spans 1.5 screen pages and doesn't tell the article writer anything new. If your version works for you, great, don't let my comments stop you from using it. :-) – sgeureka 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• That is the pleasure of GA reviews, from my view. I usually go into way more detail than you do. We each can function at our own comfort level. I would hate to see this change. But if it does, through new rules, I will just move on to another aspect of Misplaced Pages. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In the six GA reviews that I have done, I use the the template to organize my thoughts, but I always leave detailed comments below. I thought that all reviewers who used templates did it that way, evidently that is not the case. In addition, I wish that people would stop beating up on FAs and FAC. Yes, there is more focus on the MOS, as there should be; our best work should maintain some level of formatting consistency. However, I have yet to see an article fail or a reviewer oppose solely because of MOS issues. In fact, when there are MOS issues, reviewers usually take the time to fix them, rather than waste time explaining the simple things. If anybody feels that the reviews at FAC or articles being passed that they feel should not, they should help out with the reviewing instead of just criticizing. Not a rant, just a tired response to this uncalled-for bashing that seems to happen everywhere and belies the time and effort that the relatively few (compared to the long list of candidates that FAC seems to have) reviewers put in. Dabomb87 (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year to everyone also! Dabomb87 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I do help out - at least I used to do so until it got too unpleasant. Now I just edited a few articles in the FAC queue and support those few. However, most reviewers just give long lists of MOS problems and it becomes impossible to follow the complaint thread with the interruptions and "discussion". Can't tell who said what after a while. Some editors make one or two edits, but mostly that say something like "I read the lead only, and this list represents only a sample of the problems." I have seen plenty of article fail on MoS issues alone. (I haven't seen your name reviewing there, however. When were you doing a lot of reviewing there? Get over to FAC and review some articles!) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Informing nominators of GA expectations

A lot of this comment is copied from an earlier comment of mine in another discussion, as this seems to be where the proposals are. With regards to reducing the backlog, I, for one, believe part of the solution needs to come from making it clearer to nominators what the GA process is, and what is expected of them. GAN isn't about "well, I've expanded this article a little and it looks pretty cool and the topic is interesting, what do I have to lose in a GA nom?" (as I, admittedly, first thought). We need to make it clearer that GA has (or at least, should have) quite high standards. I bet most reviewers look at the article before they sign up to review it, and if they see a one-line lead, typos and no references, it could sit at GAN for ages. On the other hand, reviewing articles from someone like TonyTheTiger is much better, because he knows what is expected. So we need to make Misplaced Pages:Guide for nominating good articles more prominent, and expand it so it makes clear that GA should not be an experiment or a push-over. Improvement in articles pre-nom would lead to more reviewers as the review itself would not be, as Philcha says (a long way above), "a grind". Any ideas how we could achieve this? Apterygial 13:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all that you have said above. In addition, I would suggest that the potential submitter of a GAN should do at least three things:

1. The first is to look at existing GA-class articles within the same topic / subtopic and ask the question, does my article compare favourably against these articles?
2. Read Misplaced Pages:Good article criteria - which is given on the Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations page.
3. Read Misplaced Pages:Guide for nominating good articles - which is given on the Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations page.

Pyrotec (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Reviewing articles from someone like TonyTheTiger is much better" - How so? He's one of the leading contributors to the problem at hand. His race with Mitchazenia has led to countless nominations from both editors. As stated many times before, however, the problem is with nominators who are unwilling to review articles. He has nominated over 200 articles and has reviewed 8. I have left polite messages on both editors' talk pages, but neither have been willing to help cut down on the backlog to which they have contributed. I would much rather review an article nominated by someone who might be willing to review someone else's article in return. I think this points, quite conclusively, to the need to (very) strongly encourage editors to review a nomination for each nomination they put up. If they are familiar enough with the criteria to nominate an article (ie. they should have already read and becoem familiar with the criteria), it's time to start reviewing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing a GA review properly would still be a grind, because of all the ref-checking. However making nominators aware of the requirements would reduce the frequency of a double grind, where a reviwer points out the problems in refs and then has to check them all again when the article's supporters say they are fixed.

I still think we need to think of incentives for reviewers, as reviewing is a lot less fun than editing. --Philcha (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The incentive is surely that the encyclopedia is improved by the review, albeit it only one article at a time. All adds up though. What other incentive is needed? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan, I'm not interested in taking cheap shots at other editors. My point here was not to explain completely how to deal with the backlog, but to simply mention one thing that could be done. Reviewing an experienced nominator's articles is easier and less of a grind than reviewing one from a new editor. That's it. The way we combat this problem needs to come from all angles, not just that of the reviewer. Apterygial 23:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in taking cheap shots either. When one looks at the GAN page objectively, however, it is hard to miss two things: (1) there is a serious backlog, and (2) TonyTheTiger has 18 nominations. Perhaps it's just a personal preference, but one of the things I look for when reviewing an article is the nominator's history at GAN: (1) Has the nominator nominated a ton of other articles? and (2) Does the nominator refuse to review other nominations? If the answer to either question is yes, I'm probably not going to review it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm with GaryColemanFan on this. I've managed over 100 reviews myself and nominated only about nine. To be honest, I don't do it for the competition, but I've seen nominators who aren't even appreciative of the review. We all have ways of picking out what to or what not to review. I've nothing against TonyTheTiger, especially when good and featured articles are merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to articles, so his efforts are to be highly applauded, but there will be potential reviewers out there who will be annoyed by nominators who don't care about the review, just the end result, and are totally unwilling to do any reviews themself. A "one in-one out" policy would reduce any backlog, but let's be honest, some people are good writers, some good reviewers. Peanut4 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually proposed something like that about a week ago, but it failed to get any traction. I'd like to think I'm a good writer and a good reviewer, but I get little enjoyment out of reviewing. Apterygial 23:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I myself backed up the idea to cap nominations. But I don't agree any more. Users like TonyTheTiger are vital in improving the quality of work here, so why cap them from doing so. And just because he's a good writer, doesn't make him necessarily a good reviewer, so there's no need to limit his work that way either. Peanut4 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't either now. What I do see is a lot of people complaining about the current system but providing little indication about how to fix it. So, my original proposal, 'Informing nominators of GA expectations'. Good idea? Apterygial 23:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(redent) I'm sure it's been brought up before, but how about some way to get your article reviewed faster if you review another article. We would need to prevent, "you pass mine, I'll pass yours", but I know I'd review more if it could get mine done quicker. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Going back to your original point, I think you actually have a sound basis for some reasoning. I notice at FAC, that SandyGeorgia says she has clear ideas of what needs to be improved, etc, when an article is first proposed. Some GAs are very good, some are nearly there, but some are clearly not ready. Quick-fails aren't necessarily the best answer, and we can't force editors to go through a peer review first, but I support your proposals to put articles in a better shape when they are nominated. Peanut4 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Aspie Me's noms

We had a small discussion here. Could someone else take a look. It's a little weird. Look at WP:GAN's history for more info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I did have a look at Aspie Me's contributions a few hours ago, and as ever these drive-by noms concern me. For example, AM nominated Adolf Anderssen and Wilhelm Steinitz for GA back in November, but did not contribute to any of the reviews, and hasn't edited either article. It is fine to say that you read more than you write, but putting up articles at GAN and not following up appears a little improper. I would like to see a commitment to carry through with further noms before AM adds more. Apterygial 05:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I asked them to join this discussion. Without good reasoning, I think we should just remove their noms. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too hasty to simply remove the nominations, the two left at war and military actually look pretty good and I was thinking of notifying the primary contributors and going ahead with a review on them. I suggest warning Aspie Me against this and removing the articles on a case by case basis.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As of today, User:Aspie me is down to do a couple of GA reviews. So I think we have to assume WP:Good faith on the nominations.Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a week and no new contribs from this user.. Wizardman 05:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I say remove them. Probably should leave them a note on their userpage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with GAN and Wikisource

I'm stumped. The issue of the moment at WP:Layout#Proposal is whether links to Wikisource should be inline, or confined to just the External links section, or external links for details plus no more than one template notice at the first relevant place in the article (see example). I think the bottom line is that there's no chance that we're going to get a consensus that covers all of Misplaced Pages, so we have to decide what we want to see at FAC, what we want to see at GAN (and WP:1.0, I think), and what we don't want to see anywhere on Misplaced Pages. The best places to find relevant arguments at the moment are s:WS:Scriptorium#WP guidelines on links from WP to Wikisource (discussion mainly by Wikisourcians) and WT:Layout#Proposal (discussion by Wikipedians). What do you guys want to see in articles trying to pass GAN? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Touch the Clouds

Someone pass Touch the Clouds a well written and well sourced B-class article. Great Gall (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a GA review in progress, so it is the responsibility of the editor who opened the review (User:Smallbones) to decide when and how to close it. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Smallbones has to pass it as it is now. Would you not agree? Great Gall (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss the nomination process as a whole, not to advertise your own articles. Please keep this in mind. –Juliancolton 15:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That is for Smallbones to decide, not me. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Controversial_articles#Words to avoid

The issue is how the usefulness of WP:Words to avoid and its talk page tends to wax and wane over the years as the "terrorism" and related arguments take over, and why that might be a bad thing, and a suggested solution of moving discussion over this and similar hot-button issues to the guideline WP:Controversial_articles. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

User:ReverendLogos & Christmas in the American Civil War

User:ReverendLogos is currently reviewing my article Christmas in the American Civil War for GA. However, he has done quite a few things to "improve" the article which would be things previous GA reviewers I've dealt with would see as problems; images underneath headings and breaking up paragraphs into very small paragraphs being the mos obvious. AGF and all, could someone mak a quick glance and make sure everything is cool? Thanks.--Gen. Bedford 23:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)