| Revision as of 01:31, 4 January 2011 editEdwardsBot (talk | contribs)354,693 edits →The Signpost: 3 January 2011: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:52, 4 January 2011 edit undoRacepacket (talk | contribs)16,693 edits →GA proceduresNext edit → | ||
| Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
| ==GA procedures== | ==GA procedures== | ||
| I have notice that there is quite a bit of in-breeding in the review of Transport article relating to roads in the United States. Since I have some interest and familiarity with the topic, I have started reviewing such article. A couple of nominators have been very resistant to suggestions to the point of coming across as stuborn. I am now involved in a review of ] which resulted in ] and ]. The content dispute is that I found press coverage quoting Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood calling upon the Congressional delegations from Michigan to South Carolina to include funding for I-73 in the 2011 Transportation Bill. There is also an I-73 Coalition website which lists all of the involved Michigan elected officials. The nominator discounts all of this, and refuses to modify the article. Rather than ask for a second opinion, the nominator failed the nomination and renominated it. I signed up for the reviewer of the second nomination and he again failed it, and manually edited the WP:GAN page. I have raised this at ANI, but it was quickly addressed by an administrator who reviews a lot of his nominations. The entire purpose of GAN is to bring a separate set of eyes to an article. If content disputes can be evaded by procedural hijinks to hide the existence of nominations and "on hold" reviews on the GAN page, the process is doomed to failure. He is also trying to cover up the problem by removing the . Please help. Thanks, ] (]) 08:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | I have notice that there is quite a bit of in-breeding in the review of Transport article relating to roads in the United States. Since I have some interest and familiarity with the topic, I have started reviewing such article. A couple of nominators have been very resistant to suggestions to the point of coming across as stuborn. I am now involved in a review of ] which resulted in ] and ]. The content dispute is that I found press coverage quoting Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood calling upon the Congressional delegations from Michigan to South Carolina to include funding for I-73 in the 2011 Transportation Bill. There is also an I-73 Coalition website which lists all of the involved Michigan elected officials. The nominator discounts all of this, and refuses to modify the article. Rather than ask for a second opinion, the nominator failed the nomination and renominated it. I signed up for the reviewer of the second nomination and he again failed it, and manually edited the WP:GAN page. I have raised this at ANI, but it was quickly addressed by an administrator who reviews a lot of his nominations. The entire purpose of GAN is to bring a separate set of eyes to an article. If content disputes can be evaded by procedural hijinks to hide the existence of nominations and "on hold" reviews on the GAN page, the process is doomed to failure. He is also trying to cover up the problem by removing the . Please help. Thanks, ] (]) 08:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *Thank you for your response. I obviously don't want to die on my sword over this matter, and it is clear that the nominator does not want to have anything to do with me. What would you suggest that I do: "fail" the second GA nomination and do the edits myself or ask for the second opinion before closing the review? Thanks for your advice. ] (]) 02:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ''The Signpost'': 3 January 2011 == | == ''The Signpost'': 3 January 2011 == | ||
Revision as of 02:52, 4 January 2011
To those leaving messages: Try to keep them brief and to the point. Posts that are too lengthy may not get a timely response. Thank you. Wizardman
|
Re: FYIYeah, sure, I'll ping you when it gets a review (that really depends on how motivated I am to review the backlog ahead of it, I'm afraid :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Charles McKnightHi - thanks for nominating and fine-tuning this to get GA status! I wrote most of it way, way back before I burned out and took my two-year wikibreak. It was created by a descendant of McKnight's who is also related to Miles Browning and Chevy Chase - I think the guy is Browning's grandson or great-grandson, but he never answered my talk page messages or my attempts to engage him on his user talk page. I took interest and dove into Questia, found lots of stuff about the guy, and spent a couple of days fixing it up. The article looks pretty much as I left it, too. I found some more documentation on both McKnight and Browning as I was transferring files to my new Christmas gift, so I'll add that stuff sometime this week. It was a nice surprise to find it's a GA - maybe we can work to take it to A-class, then FA? I'm completely new to anything above GA and it's a little intimidating. Wanna work with a sarong-shaking volcano goddess like me? ;-) Thanks again - KrakatoaKatie 04:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks!Thanks for reviewing I Hear You, I See You. As always, your reviews are much appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 06:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program is looking for new Online AmbassadorsHi Wizardman! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Misplaced Pages in their classes. If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply! You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones). I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Please protect the article Garrett WittelsHi Wizardman, I saw that you reverted IP edits today at Garrett Wittels. Could you remove this edit and protect it indefinitely from IPs? If you don't get to it, I have notified the protection page as well. Thanks!--TM 23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC) The Signpost: 27 December 2010
Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2011 signupsHey, just to let you know that discussions have concluded that substantial (IE, not quick-fail and more than 1000 bytes' worth) reviews will be offered two points per review. J Milburn (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Pokemon Apokelypse GANWould it be alright to call it passed at this point? It's been a long without objection on the GAN itself.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 13:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC) DYKThanks for your review of my Al Burris nomination. I've since lengthened the article a little so that it meets the 5x expansion requirement. - PM800 (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Superchips article reinstatementI would propose the reinstatement of the Superchips article as it is an important company in the development of tuning cars. Contrary to the deletion argument put forward elsewhere, the company is reported in many reputable publications such as Autocar, Evo and Auto Express. The company provides ECU upgrades to a wide range of popular vehicles, such as the Ford Focus, Skoda Fabia, BMW 1 Series, Volkswagen Golf and SEAT Ibiza as reported in the following selection of articles. Perhaps the article was in need of an edit rather than deletion?
Warren Whyte (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC) GA proceduresI have notice that there is quite a bit of in-breeding in the review of Transport article relating to roads in the United States. Since I have some interest and familiarity with the topic, I have started reviewing such article. A couple of nominators have been very resistant to suggestions to the point of coming across as stuborn. I am now involved in a review of U.S._Route_223 which resulted in Talk:U.S._Route_223/GA1 and Talk:U.S._Route_223/GA2. The content dispute is that I found press coverage quoting Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood calling upon the Congressional delegations from Michigan to South Carolina to include funding for I-73 in the 2011 Transportation Bill. There is also an I-73 Coalition website which lists all of the involved Michigan elected officials. The nominator discounts all of this, and refuses to modify the article. Rather than ask for a second opinion, the nominator failed the nomination and renominated it. I signed up for the reviewer of the second nomination and he again failed it, and manually edited the WP:GAN page. I have raised this at ANI, but it was quickly addressed by an administrator who reviews a lot of his nominations. The entire purpose of GAN is to bring a separate set of eyes to an article. If content disputes can be evaded by procedural hijinks to hide the existence of nominations and "on hold" reviews on the GAN page, the process is doomed to failure. He is also trying to cover up the problem by removing the transclusion of the review from the talk page. Please help. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 3 January 2011
|
