Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:19, 18 June 2008

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 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• WT:GAN
• WT:GAC

GAN Reviewer of the "Week" for 4/28/2008 through 5/10/2008

Ok, so it's actually about two weeks, but anyway, here's the stats: Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for 4/28/2008 through 5/10/2008. Dihydrogen Monoxide is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:

1. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)
2. GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs)
3. Eustress (talk · contribs)
4. Nikki311 (talk · contribs)
5. Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs)

Additionally, it's also worth noting that, during the same period, the top two nominators were:

1. Mitchazenia (talk · contribs)
2. Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs)

GA Newsletter: June 2008

The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 8 - June 2008 May issue | July issue Project News There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance! The oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan. The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11) The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review. GA Sweeps Update The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details. GAN Reviewer of the Month Giggy (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month! Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted. Member News There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April: Jack Bethune (talk · contribs) Jordan Timothy James Busson (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Redmarkviolinist (talk · contribs) This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all! New GA Review Process - Review Subpages In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. ], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable. When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category. When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Misplaced Pages:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter. Did You Know... ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles? ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews? ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles? From the Editors A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 (talk · contribs), Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), EyeSerene (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), Gwinva (talk · contribs), LaraLove (talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs). Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor) Giggabot, Giggy (Distributor) Improving Misplaced Pages one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Misplaced Pages. Nominations: Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) • UNICEF club (talk | history | start review) • 2022 Fife Council election (talk | history | start review) • New England Revolution in international competition (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Bleeding Through • Khandoba • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

New system

I once reviewed many articles. Now, due to the new system, and other changes to the GA process that I either do not understand or do not find to be conducive to performing the thorough reviews I was known for, I haven't reviewed for more than a month. One of the effects predicted by some when discussing a reform of GA has come about...you've driven away active reviewers. Good job. And best of luck bringing willing reviewers in to your equally bureaucratic new review system. It doesn't look like the backlog is any better from where I'm sitting. VanTucky 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It would help if you could show us what you are getting confused with. I was not intimately involved with the new system, but I didn't have a problem adjusting to the new way. What is the problem? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This subpage system stinks. It's confusing to people nominating, who are used to having it directly on the talk page, and I find it cumbersome. I think the creators of this, who saw adding another special step and type of page just to do a GA review was a decreasing of complexity and bureaucracy, are out of their mind. Neither does it increase transparency. All it does is make it easier to archive old and inactive reviews. I was extremely familiar with the old system, and other than the complex templating, it was a natural system of reviewing. This is the exact opposite: it creates some special new reviewing space, rather than using a space already set up for discussion about articles, the talk page. VanTucky 20:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As always, I find myself agreeing with VanTucky that there is still too much bureaucracy at GA. In particular, I agree with his first message that GA is overly bureaucratic, and that the introduction of the subpage system does absolutely nothing to address this. I hope that this issue is being discussed by those editors in the reform working group (of which I am not currently a member).

However, the subpage system was never intended to reduce bureaucracy, nor was it pushed by me to that end. It was introduced to enhance accountability: the ideal is that every GA action has a permanent link to a review which justifies that action. You don't need to work at GAR for very long to realise how often this ideal is not achieved.

There was overwhelming pressure to implement a subpage system, and all feedback so far, apart from this thread, has been positive. New reviewers continue to join GA all the time. Since they are not wedded to the old system, they don't need to adapt: they take it as they find it. Reviews are transcluded onto the article talk page, so the talk page is still the place for review discussion.

The subpage system was introduced 2 weeks, not a month ago, so in the spirit of VanTucky's first message, I wish him good luck with his contributions elsewhere, and thank him for his past help at GAN. Geometry guy 21:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I joined this fine company only yesterday when I performed by first review. It was a little scary I must admit, but the process of how to perform the formalities was very clearly explained on this page, and I had no problem understanding it and complying to it. I do not know how it was before, and cannot compare, but for me the subpage system was natural; just like XfD, peer reviews and other processes have them, I was actually expecting to find it here to. Arsenikk 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There is an apparent confusion in what you appear to be saying between bureaucracy, complexity and accountability IMO. The idea of the review subpage – which I believe to be a good one – was to increase accountability. The price paid was a very small increase in complexity, but no increase in bureaucracy. A price worth paying? I think so.

I continue to oppose a shift towards multi-reviewer systems, on the other hand, because they would indeed add to the bureaucracy, but for what benefit? To satisfy those editors who will always consider GA to be an inferior version of FA until they manage inevitably and imperceptibly to merge with GA with FA? That's a lose-lose situation for everyone. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just did my first review under the new system (and my eighth GA review overall). I found it to be about as easy as the old system with the advantage that the review is now a permanent link (something I am highly in favor of). What is confusing is all the work after the review - I passed Skye and had to make comments on the GA subpage, on the nominator's talk page, change the GA template at the top of the article talk page, remove the nom from GAN, and update the GA list. Reviewers do not have to do this much "paperwork" at FAC or PR or FLC. I found it easier to fix a cut and paste page move today (an admin task I have done about as often as GA reviews). Just my thoughts, Ruhrfisch _><>° 22:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's of course at least partly due to the fact that FA and FL have nominated directors who carry out all of the closing paperwork. I'd be very much against the idea of a GA director. I do agree though that closing is a real PITA, with too many steps. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, all the things you have to do to close it was not introduced by the subpage idea; it was always a part of it (or recently, anyway).

However, the easiness of the FA process is that there is a bot that does automatic archiving of FAs once they're done, adds it to the ArticleHistory, and generally makes things a lot easier. It'd be nice if someone could come up with a bot like that for the GA process (actually, I was thinking of doing that, if I can gain the technical knowledge). Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, and something we may well want to address soon, once we have a system in place we're all happy with (per the discussions Gguy referred to above).

@VanTucky: I personally will be very sorry to see such a high-quality reviewer leave the project, but you must do what you feel is best, and I too wish you all the best. EyeSerene 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably on a complete tangent, but one probably appropriate to put under this heading. I've created a review for Ron Hamence but the review isn't transcluded on the Talk page. I think it was originally but has now disappeared. Anyone know why? Peanut4 (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Scrap that. I've sorted it. But do reviewers really need to add an extra line to the talk page? Shouldn't the process do it automatically? Peanut4 (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes, as there is no bot operating here, only templates, and I can't see a way to do that using templates. Geometry guy 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I've only done two reviews under the new system. But can't remember having to add that extra line in the first time. Peanut4 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot my main point. D'oh. Shouldn't the review process say to put the template line on the talk page to tranclude the review? Peanut4 (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It does, doesn't it? Geometry guy 17:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I'll go hang my head in shame. Peanut4 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries :-) Actually, if you or anyone else can find ways to clarify (concisely) the instructions either here (at WP:Good article nominations/guidelines) or at Template:GAN/editintro, please do. This is a wiki after all :-) Geometry guy 17:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Review page headers

I'm sure I saw this question elsewhere, but naturally I can't find it now ;) Is there any reason why the review page starts with a level two rather than a level three header? It seems to me L3 is more suitable for displaying things when the review is transcluded to the talk page... what were the thoughts on this? EyeSerene 19:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Reviews have traditionally appeared and should still appear in a separate section on the talk page, not a subsection of an existing section. Placing the level 2 header on the subpage guarantees this. If it were a level 3 header, the reviewer would have to add a level 2 header before the transclusion. leading to a set-up as follows:

==GA Review== (edit link goes to article talk page revealing only a template, not the review)

===GA Review=== (edit link goes to review subpage)

This is redundant and confusing, and there is no guarantee that it will be done consistently.

Finally, using a level 2 header makes level 3 available to break up the review into comments, responses, updates, second opinions etc. At peer review one of the most common mistakes is users adding level 3 headers to peer reviews, thus messing up the peer review page and the archives: editors are not used to levels 4 and 5. Sadly, peer review has to use level 3, because level 2 is needed for the main sections of the peer review page.

Is there actually any reason why level 3 is more suitable than level 2 for GA? I struggle to think of one :-) Geometry guy 20:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

None whatsoever, and I apologise for wasting your time with a stupid question. I was transcluding the review into a 'new section' instead of just sticking it at the bottom of the page, which of course meant two L2 headers followed each other. I came back here to strike my comment when I realised I was just being dense, but unfortunately not soon enough :P EyeSerene 20:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a "feature" (drawback) of the system, and you're not being dense (and surely are not alone) in making this mistake. Also I'm finding some reviewers are using L2 headers to break up the review, which is unfortunate, but can probably be discouraged by tweaking the documentation. Geometry guy 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, and it's only a minor niggle. I'm so used to conducting reviews in a new talk-page section, it was just force of habit - I didn't even stop to think. I have to say, though, that I'm finding the new system really excellent, and having a permanent review link to a separate subpage is such a huge improvement I can't think why we do this ages ago ;) EyeSerene 22:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think the instructions on the page you see when you start a review (GAN/header, I think is the template) could be a bit more clear on what to add to the talk page. Perhaps the use of some selective bolding, at least... it's a bit confusing for now (or I thought so when I first started using subpages). giggy _(:O) 01:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sphinx Head was removed from the nomination in an out-of-process manner.

If the Good Article nomination and evaluation process is to be taken at all seriously in the larger community, then, as a first step, it should conduct its affairs in a consistent, orderly way; in the absence of such then one cannot conclude anything about this project other than that if fills up talk pages in a rather noisy way, for an irregularly conducted process cannot be evaluated by any metric whatsoever and it becomes unclear if the program is capable of distinguishing good articles from the run of the mill.

Noble Story removed Sphinx Head from nomination (see reference) because it is list-like, rather than prose like, in much of its composition.

1. However, I see no quick fail criteria permitting a summary failure of a list-like article.
2. Furthermore, in relation to published quick-fail criteria, Sphinx Head: appears to pass. It is not:
   1. completely lacking in reliable sources. A bit of measured reflection leads me to question the use of one reference, but that is a measured reflection. A quick glance of the article finds many citations in play from a number of references
   2. treat it's topic in a non-neutral way. Again, measured reflection may lead some editors to conclude that it deals with the topic in a sympathetic way, but that is not immediately obvious to this editor; it is a conclusion that follows only after some contemplation
   3. have any cleanup banners
   4. have an ongoing edit war, or
   5. cover a rapidly unfolding event with a definite terminating condition in the offing.
3. I'm aware that the article has a rather large, embedded list. Indeed, I've opined that it make the article read rather like a telephone directory. I'm also aware that the good article criteria has a clause excluding lists, portals and images from nomination. However:
   1. the exclusionary language has not actually been incorporated into the quick fail criteria. Perhaps it should be, but that is another discussion for another place. In any event, it is not the business of reviewers to add quick fail criteria on the fly. That is a matter of deliberation and consensus.
   2. for sake of argument, even if there were a sixth quick-fail criterion barring list-like composition, I would argue that the article could not be quickly failed on that point. It does start off with a decent bit of prose that is sufficiently developed to consider the article a prose piece, at least in part. Since this can be argued, and since I'm obliged to assume good faith regarding the nominators, I can only conclude that the nominators had read the exclusionary language but concluded that their article was more prose- than list-like.
4. Finally, small points perhaps, but necessary to note: Noble Story did not sign his action statement on the talk page, nor did he perform any action with the {{GAN}} template, leaving the talk page out of sync with the Good Article nomination page. One gets the impression that the editor was working in haste and was growing a tad careless.

Since:

1. the article has been nominated in good faith, and
2. appears not to violate any of the five published quick-fail criteria

the only fair and equitable step to take is to reinstate the nomination and subject it to a standard nomination evaluation. Sadly, professional matters will draw me from Misplaced Pages for the balance of the day, but, in the absence of a compelling argument to the contrary I plan to reinstate the article to the nomination list, and possibly even review the article, though such effort will in the wee (UTC-4) hours of tomorrow morning at the earliest. I or another reviewer may conclude in the context of a nomination evaluation that the article is too list-like in its composition, failing 1(b); it is out of process to simply pull the article from the nomination list, denying review, as if there was a quick-fail criterion barring such articles.

I confess sadness at subjecting Noble Story to this sharp rebuke. Noble Story has been rightfully commended for the number and quality of his or her reviews and I admire the bits that I've seen of them. If this had been the work of a new or inexperienced reviewer I would have contained my remarks to the reviewer's talk page. Alas, this is one of our good practitioners, one that I admire, and one that I hold to higher standards. I hope that Noble Story continues to review with the care and thoroughness that he or she has demonstrated in the past. For the present case, I trust that the Back Log Demon has led Noble Story to a temporary lapse — a good faith effort to quicky remove 'obvious fails' from the nomination list. Be that as it may, I hope that I've made abundantly clear that even so-called 'obvious fails' have a right to be evaluated in accordance with the published process and only through the published process. I need not remind editors who have observed the various and sundry debates concerning the Good Article marque that there are those who hold the project in deep and profound contempt. Let us not hand that community a verifiable basis for their contempt. Yes, there is a backlog. To those alarmed by such, don't panic. If the Good Article nomination and evaluation process can be demonstrated to be erratic in its application, then there arises a proper and justifiable basis to shut the project down. That, of course, would neatly deal with the back log in a very short order. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've listed this at Good article reassesment, since you're disputing the reviewer's decision. There's a link at the top of the article talk page to the reassessment discussion, or you can click here. EyeSerene 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that NobleStory looked at the article and considered it a list. Per this, lists are not candidates for GA, instead Lists, portals, and images: these items should be nominated for featured list, featured portal, and featured picture status respectively. I think the article fails NPOV - I looked up the New York Times article and it refers to two societies at Cornell: "Sphinx Head" and "Quill and Dagger" and says "Election to these societies is on the basis of of prominence in student activities and is considered the highest non-scholastic honor within the reach of undergraduates." However, the quote as used in the article omits any reference to the other society (Quill and Dagger), clearly POV in favor of Sphink Head. I also think the article (which is just a list of the 63 newest members and a bit of background on the soceties) clearly implies this is the highest non-scholastic honor within Cornell (in 1929). Ruhrfisch _><>° 17:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. To prevent discussion fork, I'll reply at the Good Article Review page that EyeSerene established. Take care Gosgood (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would conclude from this that we need to deprecate quick-failing; it is already discouraged, and rightly so. Every nomination deserves a review, and now that we have the subpage system, every completed GAN action must have a permanent link to a review subpage explaining that action. I am not against articles being failed quickly: putting articles on hold is optional, and the further away an article is from meeting the criteria, the briefer the review can be. But a review there should be, nonetheless. Geometry guy 08:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding "is a list" to Quick-fail criteria

Right now the quick-fail criteria says nothing about failing an article because it is a list. However, that is a valid reason to fail. So, I'm thinking a sentence about that should be added. Thoughts? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I "quick failed" a list once and then thought about it and removed the failed GA template from the talk page. To my mind, quick fail means that at some point the article may pass and become a GA. However, a list by its nature can never become a GA, so is it really fair to put a "failed GA candidate" template on its talk page when it can never become a GA?
  I do think it is worth adding to the "First things to look for" that lists and others that can never be GA can be removed from GAN. Ruhrfisch _><>° 04:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could list it as a quick-fail criterion, but with instructions for the reviewer to leave a message on the talk page and not to use the failed GA template. Does that work? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Has the removal of a list from GAN ever been disputed? (Note, the above recent case is not an example of a list: it merely contains an embedded list.) If not, then perhaps we don't need to be making up rules for problems which don't occur. Geometry guy 08:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that the above article is not a list? If I may ask, at what ratio of prose/list does an article have to be to considered a list? I think a lot of people would consider that article a list. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 09:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the above case (which I haven't observed so won't comment on yet) I agree with Ruhrfisch. Lists will never be GA so we should remove GAN templates (and tell editors why we did so, obviously). giggy _(:O) 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What about borderline cases, like TV season articles? Lost (season 1) is an featured list; Smallville (season 1) is a featured article. Sceptre 10:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that borderline cases like these can, in principle at least, be GAs. Geometry guy 19:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image licence

I am reviewing Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany and on checking the images I found a licence I had not seen before. As the image is limited to wikipedia and not to be copied to commons is this fair use? All the other images are under this type of licence . Assistance gratefully received - you could make use of the review subpage if relevant. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, really. The use of the image on the English Misplaced Pages would be under a free license, and since it's being used in an English Misplaced Pages article, it doesn't need a fair use rationale here. It can't be uploaded to Commons simply because Commons doesn't accept images that aren't free both in the United States and in the country of origin, not because it's somehow an invalid license. Cheers! Esrever 17:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Kaypoh

Has anyone else noticed this editors actions on GAN. He is wasting reviewers free time, I hate to say it that bluntly. He nominates articles, articles he doesn't even work on and NEVER does any of the work while on hold. This results in the article failing and leaves the reviewer pissed off quite frankly. This needs to stop, it boarders on disruptive. He has been told its not good multiple times. He nominated the Loose (album) a while back. The reviewer did a nice job summing up what needed doing. On an article of that size the reviewer must have lost about 1 hour or more of their free time. I was so annoyed that the nominater hadn't done any of the work that I decided to do it despite never working on the article previously. Months on and I see that he is still doing it. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive 9#Placing GAN on hold (backlog), Misplaced Pages talk:Good article nominations/Archive 9#Kaypoh and drive-by noms. Any new thoughts? giggy _(:O) 11:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Number of concurrent nominations (Archive 8) He is aware of the backlog problem and…
• User_talk:Kaypoh#GA nomination … the complicity of multiple nominations with backlogs.
• His contribution history shows, of late, that he reviews and copyedits articles prior to nomination. To me, the edits (, , ) on Marilena from P7 shows that Kaypoh knows how to consolidate prose. He seems to be of a mind to prep an article, nominate it, and then move onto other tasks. With his moving on to other tasks, Kaypoh raises an interesting question. Suppose that a nominating editor just doesn't like the kind of interleaved editing session with a reviewer that many of us have come to expect of nominators. Is it necessary to codify such an interactive session as an evaluation requirement? If a reviewer leaves a well-reasoned blueprint for improving the article, does it really matter that the nominator chooses not to be the implementor? I'm rather inclined to think not. The reviewer's criticism, if it forms a well-crafted blueprint, is the useful output of a Good Article evaluation. Producing such an artifact would certainly not be a waste of the reviewer's time. This being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then anyone can take up such a well-made blueprint and run with it. I would think that a reviewer would find it a source of pride to author an article review that is of sufficient clarity and detail that anyone could work with it and that it requires no dependencies or tacit understandings between the reviewer and a particular nominator. I think that it would simplify the Good Article evaluation process if we reviewers would write our reviews with sufficient generality so that anyone could work with them.
• Kaypoh raises another interesting question. Is there a minimum effort that a nominator must invest in an article before "gaining" the right to nominate it? I believe, at present, that we ask a nominator to recognize that an article is good before nominating it. Are there concrete preparations that a nominator must make to ensure that his or her certification of the article has merit? I've suggested to another editor that, prior to enqueuing an article, a nominator should self-review the candidate in accordance with the good article criteria and take any necessary steps to bring it up to GA standards before nominating the candidate. Such a rule may minimize dead-on-arrival candidates but may discourage nominators from participating. It's not clear to me if a 'nominator's requirement' rule is needed, or what it should exact of the nominator. That said, I would like to see better-prepared articles nominated. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not only with this particular editor, although I agree that he/she is consistently not "playing fair", as it were. I ran into a similar scenario while reviewing (and consequently failing) Gary Oldman for GAC; although I provided an in depth review, placed the article on hold for a week, and contacted the nominator, zilch was done and I received no reply. In fact, I was outright ignored. It's incredibly irritating that my time, and the time of various other reviewers, must be wasted on these halfway noms; if a nominator is only willing to go halfway, then what are we even doing providing these reviews? I say we make it absolutely clear in the instructions that the nominator should expect to take part in the reviewing process, meaning that they respond to questions/suggestions/comments to the best of their ability and work to improve the nominated article if it does not fully meet the criteria after an initial review. I don't like the idea of "banning" certain users from nominating, but in the case of "repeat offenders", open discouragement may help alleviate the problem. María (habla conmigo) 15:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On following the link above I read this User_talk:Kaypoh#Your nomination of Nhat Hanh for GA review, and thought here is another issue that Kaypoh has raised. One possible result from this is the article has a history of a failed GA, when actually at least one editor did not want it nominated in the first place.Edmund Patrick – confer 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Gosgood, you have raised some interesting points that I never thought about. I can see there are some good qualities to what the editor is doing, so thankyou for explaining that. However GA review isn't a fairy tail where we have all the time in the world. The fact of the matter is we have a backlog, this editor is unnessarily adding to that. Regarding your statement here:

Suppose that a nominating editor just doesn't like the kind of interleaved editing session with a reviewer that many of us have come to expect of nominators. Is it necessary to codify such an interactive session as an evaluation requirement? If a reviewer leaves a well-reasoned blueprint for improving the article, does it really matter that the nominator chooses not to be the implementor? I'm rather inclined to think not. The reviewer's criticism, if it forms a well-crafted blueprint, is the useful output of a Good Article evaluation. Producing such an artifact would certainly not be a waste of the reviewer's time.

We already have a process for this sort of activity. Its called peer review. If the editor wants feedback on an article to give the "future generation" help/advise take it to peer review, not here. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 18:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(← outdent) When I review an article, I take as my remit the Reviewing good articles guidelines. In the case where an article is failing, then step three of this guideline charges me with the responsibility to prepare a review "extensive enough to allow the article to be improved and renominated, so that it will pass in the future." Even when an article passes the Good article criteria, my remit still calls on me to furnish constructive criticism, perhaps given in the context of the gap from the Good to Featured article standards. In any case, if I assume the role of a good article reviewer, then that is the deliverable which I am entrusted to convey to the community. I regard the nominator as the representative of that community. There is a peer review process; it appears that the responsibility with which I have been charged has no dependency on that process. As a consequence, I have no option to delegate my review responsibility to it. I have the overriding responsibility to ignore all rules when they get in the way of writing the encyclopedia; I don't think this guideline is so dysfunctional that I am obliged to invoke that overriding responsiblity. That is my understanding of the responsibility of a Good Article reviewer. Pray, have I left anything of significance out?

I find Kaypoh's behaviour a pain in the behind. He appears to have been told about the "nominate one, review one." rule-of-thumb. He says he's not good at reviewing. He's been asked, "how, then, could you figure out if a nominated article is good?" He hasn't answered that one, but it may very well be, "Aren't you guys the reviewers? Isn't that your job?" He reminds me of an executive who avoids getting bogged down in details that he's not good at executing. Kaypoh doesn't get involved in content. His strengths, it seems, lie in the realm of logistics and dispatch. He seems to think that he's not a good writer, copyeditor, or article reviewer, so he exercises his strength (dispatch), and farms out his weaknesses (writing, editing, content review...). Does this irritate me in the extreme? Oh yes. I'm one of the dopes-at-the-end-of-the-rope who is getting what he's farming out. And so are you and everyone else on this thread. Is what he's doing wrong? Uuuuuh. I draw a blank there, because nominators are not governed by a guideline-level document as reviewers are. The closest there is to a nominator governance is Nehrams2020's essay "Guide for nominating good articles." There I read about all of the nice behaviour we'd like nominators to exhibit. But this is an essay, not policy, and not a guideline. Kaypoh or any other nominator can read it and conclude: 'Eh. I'm not real good at doing any of that. I think I'll pass.' Does this frustrate the stuffing out of me? Ya, you betcha. But Kaypoh's high-handed, executive-elite behaviour reminds me of an old buzzard of a supervisor I once had. "Osgood," he said, "Sometimes people don't color between the lines you draw for them." Looking back twenty years, I can only say that it was a day I needed slapping with a wet trout. Messy inputs are a part of real life. One has to observe them from a neutral point of view (what a coincidence!), document their behaviour in a passionless way, and then — and only then — design a process that is adaptive to the observed, real-life, human behaviour, and not the fairy-tale case where people always behave the way you'd like them to. The discussion of such a process, by the way, may very well be taking place on the reform page. If not, it should start there. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny goings-on at GA

I saw this on a talk page I regularly watch, which led also to this and this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I nominated the article partly because Meldshal asked me to do so and partly because I wanted to know how to improve the article. Perhaps this was a lapse of judgement on my part, as I honestly didn't think the article had enough referencing along with other problems. Perhaps we should delist it or have a more in depth review. I'm an Editorofthewiki 01:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I delisted it, but I left it as a GA nominee so that a more thorough review could be performed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was simply going to delist it without puting it back up for review. Two entire sections are unreferenced, and the article is too short to be comprehensive. It's a quick fail candidate, imo, but I'll essentially leave it for a second reviewer. Resolute 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not speaking up before this. I saw Mary Meader pass, which it should not have with a source used 33 times. I also saw that Hell's Gate National Park was passed, and it should not have been. A national park article should be much more comprehensive. I've had GAs passed by editors who really didn't seem to know what they're doing. It's really not worth it. I'd much rather feel as if I achieved something. If you continue to review GA's Meldshal, I suggest making your criteria much more stringent. --Moni3 (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the criteria is fine as it is. The problem is the lack of quality reviewers, and the surplus of reviewers who pass articles that really shouldn't be. The original purpose of GA was to recognize articles that are not or not likely to reach featured, so raising the GA bar would further blur the GA/FA line. Juliancolton 02:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think theres a BIG difference between GA and FA. I have 6 GA's and not a single FA yet :-(. For me at least the jump is still noticeable. Im quite supprised by the links provided. It doesn't look good and cheapens a process I have a lot of respect for. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 02:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed currently a substantial difference, but with the ongoing discussion at WT:WIAFA regarding lowering (IMO) the FA standards, and this discussion to raise the GA standards, there might not be in time. Juliancolton 02:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe what Moni meant is not that the GA criteria isn't stringent enough, but that Meldshal's personal criteria for assessing GACs is lacking, which, having left my comments at Hell's Gate National Park's talk page, I have to agree with. That article is nowhere near GAC standards and yet it passed with (seemingly) flying colors. The process wonkery stated above by Sandy is, in my opinion, highly immoral. María (habla conmigo) 02:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is, in fact, what I meant. I did the initial GA review for Mary Meader. When it sat for 7 days without action, it failed. The first comment from Meldshal in their review was to rectify the repeated use of The New York Times source, but it was retracted. It's my personal observation that that's from lack of confidence, and being challenged by an enthusiastic nominator. The encouragement to nominate articles to be specifically reviewed is very troubling, however. --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't approve of what those diffs seem to imply, but this is hopefully just a mistake due to a lack of familiarity with the GA process. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is clearly no mistake. This is gaming a system set up on good faith. I run into articles every day, many times when they arrive at FAC completely unprepared, that were victims of either a nominator "collecting" GAs for awards or a reviewer "collecting" GA reviews for some purpose I do not understand. Sharkface's award center gave me some insight into the problem but, like Star Wars Episodes 1–3, I have decided to ignore it for the sake of my own sanity. This is a deliberate process in which an editor posts about an article being ready (fishing for other interested parties), then asks an editor to nominate it, making it clear that they intend to review the article themselves. The result is severely deficient articles carrying GA status which at some point emboldens either the original nominator or some unwitting editor to try bringing it to FAC, which, as others have pointed out, is leagues away from GA in terms of quality. I've caught other editors doing this and literally had to threaten an RFC to get them to stop. --Laser brain (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's just plain wrong and a threat to the whole process. It should be discouraged in the strongest possible way. Wrad (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nipping it in the bud might be facilitated by following User:Sharkface217/Awards Center and admin coaching; two factors that are detrimental to both GAN and FAC, as editors on a checklist path to RfA try to gather awards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(← outdent) Meldshal42 expresses the intent to make people rejoice, that he or she likes to review and is not out to cheat articles, but when I look at a review like this:

• Talk:1992 Nicaragua earthquake#GA Review

and compare it to a review like this:

• Talk:Mechanical engineering/GA1

I am struck with how, regardless of his efforts, Dank55 review is being undermined. As SandyGeorgia has pointed out in more ways than I have fingers and toes, just one weak Good Article review makes all reviews suspect. The one weak review is sufficient to demonstrate that the process is uneven. It establishes doubt, and doubt travels faster and penetrates deeper than a sense of integrity about things. As Moni3 has shrewdly observed, people rejoice only if they feel they have achieved something, but doubt undermines that sense of achievement. It leaves people who are working hard on nominating or reviewing articles wondering if they are doing anything useful for the larger community. Becoming doubtful, they wander off and find something else more rewarding. And as we learned today with The League of Copyeditors, it does not take very long after project has become moribund for somebody to kindly and lovingly put a bullet through its head, so that the project is in misery no longer. Then hey, presto! no more Good Article awards! They'd just be stupid green trinkets anyway, cluttering talk pages. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to all users because I didn't realize that it was kind of unfair. Please, let me review the articles fairly. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to review articles fairly. To confirm that you are doing so, please post a new section here, or contact one of the GAN mentors, before posting a review on an article's talk page, so someone more experienced can confirm that you are "review the articles fairly". Thanks and good luck. giggy _(:O) 10:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I did spot one editor sign up at the Award's Center to do 10 GA reviews. Within just a couple of minutes he/she had passed one GAN. It may well have been a pass, and the Award may have been set up in good faith, but I think there are some people who go to the Award Center to pick up awards without making quality edits. There are countless number of editors who do far better work for no reward. Peanut4 (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It may well be that I am more to blame than Meldshal. 1556 Shanxi was most certainly not a good article and I was only listing because I wanted specific concerns, not an all-out pass. I personally thought that everything that needed to be said was said in all my GAs that Meldshal passed, though I agree they were all on the short side. I do not participate in the Award Center and I wrote these articles for to embetter Misplaced Pages. Meldshal's reviews should've been a bit more thorough, I suppose. P.S. I bought the Mary Meader Book, but I think using it would give too much detail to Meader's flight and thus the article would not be NPOV, so I decided not to use it. I'm an Editorofthewiki 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As do I. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Hello all - I'm a novice GA reviewer, and I'd appreciate feedback on my most recent reviews: Talk:Mark Hatfield/GA1 (based on this version of the article), Talk:Fern Hobbs/GA1 (based on this version of the article), and Talk:Indiana General Assembly/GA1 (based on this version of the article). Am I being too harsh? Unduly emphasizing "well written" over the other criteria? Being too pedantic about grammatical rules? I don't think I'm going to turn into one of your most prolific reviewers, but I could see myself enjoying doing a burst of reviews from time to time, and I'd like to make sure I'm doing them right. Apologies if there would have been a better place to post this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your reviews are fantastic. Seriously, they are some of the best I've seen. bibliomaniac15 03:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Very nice, always check web links to make sure they work and always read the notes/references to make sure all sources come from a reliable place. I only took a quick scan but I'll ashume you did that. Much better than me after my first attempt. Gush, it makes me teary eyed. If I had the time I would do a review right now. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 04:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me! That's the sort of review I'd love if I nominated an article. I also worry whether I'm too pedantic about prose when reviewing... I don't expect "engaging, even brilliant" prose, but I think clarity and correctness is extremely important for GA. Somno (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(I'm his GAN mentor ;-)). SI, that's great. Much better than the section above this one. Please keep it up. giggy _(:O) 06:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple proposal

What if GA reviewers had to be certified in some way? Another way to think of this is to require all GA reviewers from now on to go through the mentoring process. In order to do a review, you would have to be listed on an approved reviewers list. Misbehavior would remove you from that list. Reviews would still be basically a one person operation, but the reviewers would be vetted.

To start, there would have to be some criteria for who was "grandfathered" in as an established reviewer (perhaps anyone who ever received top 5 in the GA reviewer of the month or anyone who had done 5 reviews that were not disputed). Perhaps there could be a page where GA reviewers listed their names and five reviews they had done (linked). If a certain number of other editors active in GA reviews supported, they would be "established".

Once a pool of established reviewers was set up in some way, they could act as mentors to new reviewers. While this would take some time and effort to set up, it might be worth it to establish some way of knowing reviewers were "approved".

This is an idea I had last night and it still seems reasonable, so I thought I would throw it out for others to shoot holes in or hopefull improve it. The basic idea is to have a list of approved GA reviewers who would be the only ones allowed to do a review. Quality control would be of reviewers and not each individual review. The goal is to improve the overall quality of GA reviews and avoid apparent gamesmanship and drive by reviews. What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>° 13:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My major concern with this would be that it seemingly goes against the whole spirit of "anyone can participate". If any process needed experienced and certified individuals to read and judge articles, it would be FAC and not GAC. While I like the idea of encouraging more training and mentoring, especially for new participants, I fear many potential reviewers would be turned off the process if some kind of authentication process was added to the mix. Think of the children backlog! María (habla conmigo) 13:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Let's not forget that we have a process reform page where this idea — and others — are being considered. Please visit there. I'm personally favourable to the open review process fielded by Gwinva. I think she's struck a good balance between oversight and the "anyone can participate" spirit. Plus, I think, she has even simplified the overall process flow, so fewer tags and fewer review states are required (but I haven't done my homework on that). Take care. Gosgood (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely opposed to this idea. It would certainly reduce the number of poor, quick reviews. I agree, though, that the extent of the increased bureaucracy would discourage new reviewers who may turn out to be experienced reviewers eventually. What if we let everbody review articles, and if they fail to do it correctly, they must go to a coaching of sorts to learn how to do it correctly? I have been recognized as one of the top five reviewers, so my opinion on this individual proposal might be biased. Juliancolton 13:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I still suggest that final passes be processed through a clearing house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we would end up too close to your stomping grounds. Juliancolton 14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

While any system will have flaws, I think we have to determine what our priorities are. The highest priority in my view is establishing and maintaining high standards for GAs. After that, it's providing an open forum for anyone to edit and evaluate those GAs. I think having a certification of GA reviewers is a good idea, but of course, things can go wrong. My fear is that it may turn into something to achieve without any substance, almost like the pseudo-hazing that goes on at RfA. An alternative idea is to have apprentice GA reviewers, whose fist 5 to 10 reviews should be approved by someone who has a significant amount of GA reviews, GAs, or FAs in their experience. If an experienced reviewer notices a new editor mark an article for review, or pass an article, s/he can observe the review and take the newcomer under his/her wing, so to speak. --Moni3 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Without a clearing house, nothing else put in place will be enforceable. Whatever is put in place, you need a final check to make sure it's happened because, like it or not, the current GA system is gameable by those who seek awards on the path to RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why, Sandy. It's as if you don't have faith that people with a common goal can work effeciently toward that goal. Or even that they agree on the goal. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure they can ... but respect for GA will increase if there is a way of knowing when something fishy is happening, other than by chance from a talk page post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I had not thought through all of the implications of my "simple proposal", but Sandy is correct (as usual). Even a system of accredited reviewers would need someone checking all of the new GAs to make sure no unapproved reviewers (or reviews) slipped through, in short, a clearing hosue. I agree with Sandy, whatever the changes in GA, to ensure the quality of all reviews, there must be some sort of clearing house. Ruhrfisch _><>° 14:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What if there is the initial reviewer, and then people can !vote on whether they think the article should pass? Or better yet, (I've thought about this for a while), what about one or two GA directors that would just ensure that all passes were done correctly? Juliancolton 15:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting is too much "process" (that definitely puts you in FAC territory :-); I'd say a panel of six to twelve directors, which is exactly what I mean by a clearing house. When an editor passes a GA, it's posted to a central clearing house, where someone on that panel checks and does the final talk page updating of the pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually starting to like this idea. I don't know that we have 12 editors who are dedicated enough to the process to be a director of sorts, however. Juliancolton 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Four to eight might do the trick. This idea came to me because of the number of articlehistory errors introduced on talk pages by "anyone can pass" GA passes. If only four to eight editors can do the final final pass, that would kill two birds with one stone (checking each GA pass, and making sure the bookkeeping is done correctly). But two GA directors wouldn't be enough, because of the volume of GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it is being discussed at the WPGA reform pages, but I think the simplist solution is to require two successful reviews to pass. That would maintain the simplicity of the GA process, while also helping to limit attempts at gaming the system. If we are going to start electing directors and what not, why not just formally make GA a step in the FA process? Resolute 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think if you'll look at the sample of issues being discussed, you'll see that two can game the system just as easily as one. (And, there would still be bookkeeping errors in the passes.) Making it part of the FA process is a big leap forward; why not first get a system that works, and cross that bridge when you come to it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we just have a group of volunteers as a task force dedicated to watching the GA page and checking each and every pass as it comes in? That wouldn't change the system at all, it would just organize something that is already a natural occurrence. I'll volunteer.v You could put a message on the GA review saying it's been double checked. That would prevent overlap, unless, of course, we want overlap. Wrad (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(after three edit conflicts, I should have learned by now not to post after Wrad :-) How would you know who has checked what, to avoid duplication of effort, and to know that all volunteers checking the same thing, possibly missing one? In other words, back to a clearing house, to make your idea work efficiently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time to start a straw poll... Juliancolton 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the reform page, so I'm not sure it's time for a poll yet. Why not first try to get that silly awards center finally MfD'd and see if that doesn't eliminate some problems ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The AWC has survived a number of MfDs already, and given the number of people that contribute to Misplaced Pages solely to receive barnstars there, I doubt we'll ever be able to get rid of it. Juliancolton 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What's this awards center y'all speak of? And why haven't I gotten copious amounts of them? Have I been giving away my time for free all this time? I expect to get paid richly for all I do... uh... for FAC, really. (I've been slacking at GA recently)... --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Sharkface217/Awards Center. That, and checklist admin coaching, are enticing editors to pass GAs on their path to backlogging FAC with ill-prepared noms on their path to RfA by checklist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The tragedy, of course, is that you don't even need GAs/FAs on your resume to get the mop - I was passed unanimously without either one. Whence comes this idea that there's a mandatory RFA checklist? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a notion bred by admin coaching, and furthered by the crowd that frequents RfA. (Some of them actually have checklists including participation at GA and FA processes.) And lest anyone has any doubts, most of these GAN/FAC issues are because of editors on what they perceive to be the path to RfA. Invariably, when a really bad GA pass shows up at FAC, an RfA is right behind it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I hope someone doesn't MfD that thing right now; it needs to be done right this time, and work is underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've been in favor of a central station for awhile now to eyeball recent passes, so whatever we get along those lines is fine by me. (And sorry for the ec's!) Wrad (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see a place for some kind of "random" sampling of passes, as a QC check, but I would not be in favour of every listing having to be double checked. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus. Just an idea, but what's wrong with delegating a l33t group to watchlist Misplaced Pages:Good articles/recent and check for duds? That could be our "clearing house". María (habla conmigo) 16:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That's like politically correct screening of grannies at airports; I can't imagine why a random process should waste time reviewing, for example, an Awadewit GA pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(OUT) I agree with Sandy, a screening process is needed as seen by recent events. However it would have to be done properly and shouldn't turn into the FA process. Only one "screener" need check the review. If 6 checkers all start commenting on 1 article, you get six times the number of complaints until eventually the article is closer to FA than GA. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 17:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)