Great article on Aymar Embury. I'm researching the architectural firm of Davis, McGrath & Kiessling, who built homes in Englewood, NJ (and elsewhere) of a similar style and during the same period as Embury. Have you found anything about them? --Krehor04:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I am doing this the right way. Very, very, very deftly written article on the Brooklyn Theater Fire. Surpassing, and admirable. ---Christopher Gray, MetHistory --- aol.com
Hi, I noticed you are characterized as a New Yorker so perhaps you might be in the NYC area in June. If you are interested we are having a meetup for Wikipedians in June in NYC. Take a peek at this and please tell any other Wikipedians that you think might be interested in participating about this event. Thanks. Alex75602:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The year of construction comes from a table that lists the significant year of construction. I checked the data a little further and found that there are two significant years listed. One of them is 1865, which is probably the year that construction started. The other significant year is 1917, which, as you mentioned, was the year that the La Fayette monument was built. It looks like my query was returning only the last year that it found. I'll change it so it only gets the first significant year listed for a property.
I just reverted some vandalism to this page by I AM THE FIRSTLORD GEKKO. He seemed a bit upset that you speedied his article. (Sucks to be him, I guess.)
I do have an account, but occasionally I forget to log into it.
It wasn't clear to me who was the primary author on the article, since no one had inserted any comments on talk for it. I guess that I could assure you that I don't have an axe to grind, but presumably that would carry little weight. I was just updating Sierra's page based on their recent aquisition of Wanako, and then followed the links for the other studios and noted that this particular article's tone was all wrong.
Obviously, I need to 1. Remember to sign-in in the future, 2. More agressively review the diffs on the article to determine who initiated the edits that resulted in the items that I took issue with. The article does need revision at the least, but ATM I don't have time to do it :(
You're very persuasive and I now agree with your plan--with the proviso that the Rhodes article be kept permanently. The main reason is we need an anchor that's heavily fact-oriented and has been vetted by professional editors of the American Historical Review, because of the intense POV that seems to surround this topic.Rjensen22:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gosgood - I've unblocked this user, per request. I'll keep an eye on him; maybe he needs more time to acclimatise himself to the way things work around here. – Rianatalk14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My recent edits to Radio (on 10:26, 26 March 2007), I seem to have faltered on my edit summary about what i actually did, as i did not add those links, just attempted to clean up what was there, i was shocked and appalled by the commercial station's link being at the top of the list, thanks though for making me think a tad more on what i write in my summary.Book M14:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate all of your help and encouragement on the Rossville, Staten Island article. I also appreciate your addition of the title coordinate template. I have added additional information since you posted your last comment on my user talk page. Please look at the article and tell me what you think... Thank you! Citizen Dick19:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, looking at the article the links probably could do with a bit of pruning, but ideally based on usefulness rather than just the 404 ones. A lot of people don't know about archive.org, so thought it best to mention it to be on the safe side. Thanks. One Night In Hackney30312:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reid Stowe, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I noticed that, a little strange! I've taken the precaution of notifying several of the main contributors from the article history and talk page that the review has been done. Tim Vickers23:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I've just noticed that an editor with whom I have a particularly negative relationship is an occasional editor of this page and has removed some of the things I added. Would it be possible for you to take over the review? Most of the points have been dealt with, leaving just a few more general points remaining. I'd see some of these as more suggestions for the future than things that must be completed for GA status. Your help would be much appreciated and would help avoid any conflict. Tim Vickers23:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that is very much appreciated. If you could introduce yourself on the Veganism talk page so people know what is going on that would be great. I've decided to take on Raëlian Church, wish me luck! Tim Vickers01:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something I was unclear about after having read the article is if "Vegans" were people who did not use animal products on ethical grounds, or if they were simply people who do not use animal products. If ethical reasons are essential to define somebody as a vegan, then the almost complete lack of information on religious "veganism" is justified. However, if Vegan is an act, rather than a motivation, then the article needs to cover all people who chose to do this, whatever their reasoning. Tim Vickers20:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropped in to say thanks Gosgood and Tim for your diligent work and kind comments on the veganism GA review, best wishes sbandrews (t) 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to bring to your attention two New York Times cited articles which I feel are good reference to facts about a vegan diet that are not included in the health section of the article. You'll see my comments at the bottom of the talk page. VanTucky(talk)20:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your in-depth response. After gauging the response a bit and writing a sandbox version of my little addition, it turned out well even if some general grumbling went on. One issue brought up by two of the citations that I didn't make mention of for fear of backlash was the idea that published sources have made mention of ethical concerns with forcing children to adhere to what is essentially an extreme diet when they do not have the resources or ability to make their own informed decisions. But that can wait maybe. Generally, I'm quite impressed with your review. Cheers. VanTucky(talk)01:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not able to reply to you quickly, as I went to camp for past 2 days. O's reasoning is pretty good, and I guess we should put a note down saying roads belong to Engtech and not Geography OhanaUnitedTalk page07:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, good to hear from you. As far as I can understand your Harry Potter-themed message, I think you believe that I'm the author of the GA template? I'm not. Writing templates is something I've never done and I wouldn't know where to start! Do you need some template-writing help? User:WillowW is a very knowledgeable programmer if you need something fixed.
Ah! The clouds of confusion clear! That's probably a mistake of my own, caused by copying text from the template page, rather than using the template. I've corrected it. Tim Vickers20:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm back home now, and on Summer holiday, so I have a lot of available time. It may take me a little while to get back into the swing of things, but I will take a look at the article and your concerns as soon as possible. This is just a note to let you know I am aware of you having raised the issue- I will address your concerns about the article another time, probably tomorrow. Thanks for contacting me about it. J Milburn22:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if you saw the talk page message, but please put the article through the relevant delisting procedure. The article needs serious work to be fixed, and it is work I currently have no desire to do. I will eventually completely rewrite the entire article- not certain when, but I am sure I will, (unless someone else does first!) and get it up to something that really is of good article standard. Thanks for your time reviewing the article. J Milburn23:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was nice meeting you yesterday. I haven't been good at updating it, but my user talk page lists a lot of articles I have worked on that might interest you. --Scottandrewhutchins12:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where would a GA review go? I followed the link you gave on the Perl talk page but saw no list to add a link to a Perl review. --Ancheta Wis10:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a very difficult time with the mention of the "collision" between Stowe's vessel and a Maersk container ship. Being as it has thus far been unsubstantiated and opens the door to litigation, perhaps it'd be best to delete reference to it from the article. A collision such as this would have ramnifications as to "failure to keep proper lookout". (COLREGS- Rule 5) http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/boating/colregs.html --Aloha2712:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re - Weather conditions - You state in the Reid Stowe Talk Page - "Weather conditions: Comes from a Stowe quote in the ESPN reference. Is Wikipedia on solid grounds in writing as if those conditions were actually extant? Probably not. It's Stowe's quoted observation to ESPN, and not an independent observation, that conveys weather conditions to this article." Yet, the article still contains the entry. The entry should be removed as it is unverifiable by an uninterested source.
RE - Mission Planning and Execution - The last line reads - "Of these unrealized scientific research plans, entailing personnel trained in data capture, Harrison noted in his 2001 Spacefaring: The Human Dimension, "...when it was all said and done, just as in the case of a real Mars mission, it proved difficult to fund."[18]" The quote from Harrison was written over 5 years before the voyage commenced. Therefore, Harrison could not have been referring to this voyage as the quote implies. Also, the press release that contains the goals of the voyage was an official document of the voyage the day they departed Hoboken and it is still on their website without alteration as of today. The article should not allow any external reasons for not attaining their goals. I have removed the Harrison quote.
RE - "A second, more serious mishap occurred on May 6th 2007 when the schooner ran into a container ship that left the schooner's bowsprit heavily damaged, though the hull and the remainder of the ship was unscathed." Changed "had an encounter with" to "ran into" The Coast Guard incident report that appears on the 1000 days at sea site makes it clear that the Anne hit the freighter. An important distinction, though not sure it warrants a footnote.
RE - Second paragraph of article replaced "captain of expedition" with "head of expedition". Use of title "captain" implies that Reid Stowe has a USCG Captain's License. There is no evidence that he does.
RE - Subsequent Attempts - Removed "Pier 63 Maritime, operator of the railroad barge to which the Anne was moored, was removed in 2007 to make way for the demolition of Pier 63, a part of the development of the Hudson River Park. This required Stowe to move the schooner Anne to Hoboken, giving rise to further delays.[21][28]" Neither article establishes a causal relationship between the removal of the barge and the delays.
RE - - Added "I've given him nearly $7,000 worth of food,". From same NYDaily News article and Relevant to Reid's following statement regarding contributors.
RE - First paragraph of article added - "funded by thousands of donated dollars". From NYDaily News article. Entire voyage is funded by donors/sponsors - critical to the overall story.
RE - Mission Planning and Execution - Replaced "the onboard infrastructure reported from time to time on" with "due to lack of equipment" and "periodic entries in". The text deleted was confusing and difficult to decipher.
RE - Mission Planning and Execution - Moved "A representative for NASA says she doesn't know anyone at the agency who is following Stowe's mission", reported Eliza Strickland in Wired Online." to introduction with other NASA discussion. Important quote, but not related to planning and execution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE - Added "Stowe and Ahmad's trip has been criticized by many other sailors who consider it ill-conceived, dangerous and irresponsible.[5]" from NY Daily News. In the reference for theis article, the title of the article is incorrect. The article is titled "One-half of amateur sailing duo gets seasick and jumps ship from voyage" I don't know how to change that. Can someone let me know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regatta dog (talk • contribs) 08:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gosgood - Reid Stowe is due to arrive home next month and his article has been so busy lately it has been locked. Unfortunately, it was locked after some very important information was deleted including well sourced information regarding his drug smuggling conviction and back child support. Also, 3 external links have been blacklisted - at least some of which you had earlier given an OK to. I sent a message to the admin who locked the article and he/she asked me to find an editor who is more familiar with the content. My discussion with the admin can be found here -- [2] under "Vandalism at article for Reid Stowe.
The Reid Stowe discussion page shows the back and forth between the various editors.
Can you intervene in this? I respect your neutrality from past interactions and think with your help the article can again represent a balanced view of Reid Stowe and his voyage.
I'm just closing the GAR for Veganism, where the main concerns were NPOV issues. I agree with these concerns, but notice that you did not raise any during the GAN review. Since I have great respect for your judgement, I wonder if you could check the archived discussion and give me your opinion in the light of my comments there. Possibly my POV antenna is too sensitive, but I believe the concerns are genuine. Thanks, Geometry guy19:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been agreed that we should have a 2-hour formal meeting period to start organizing meta:Wikimedia New York City, and this will be held at the Pacific Library (note this is different from the Brooklyn Central Library, which was discussed earlier) from 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM.
Thanks Gosgood for making the correction(s) needed for the link to the Bumfuzzle sailing site. For the life of me I couldn't figure out what the problem was! Thanks again! -Steve. Aloha2723:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the Audio God ID, but when I tried the first time to post using the tildes... somehow it appeared. I've been doing the ID manually since.
I still believe that the quotes, as well as the references to Crowhurst and the Bumfuzzles are of particular significance here. If even ONE "mariner" or gloryseeker decides against setting out after reading this one-sided entry from Stowe and/or his supporters, on an ill-prepared, undercrewed sojourn on the open ocean, sailing frequently without anyone on watch, I think it'd be well served. As I explained on another talk page, Patti and I have logged over 13,000 miles aboard our well-found vessel. It has been surveyed every five years and certified/documented as seaworthy for our own peace-of-mind as well as to satisfy the insurer.
With Stowe's rotting sails,foul hull and questionable seamanship capabilities, not only do I fear for their lives but the Search-And-Rescue crews that will eventually have to venture out in God-knows-what weather in a rescue attempt. The voyage so far has been blessed, perhaps unbelievably so with an extended window of good weather. The few times they've suffered adverse weather, something broke. It won't improve on its own. Trust me on this one. Fair Winds!
Mmoes seems to like your user page, but he copies it rather too closely, methinks. Not sure if it matters to you, or if you care, but I thought you should know if you didn't. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thats pretty messed up and no I didn't know about it so I appreciate it. I need to go deal with real life issues right now so I will address it lately. Thanks again and cheers! --Tom14:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you provided a tongue-in-cheek citation needed on your user page. I put something similar on my user page. So I thought you might know--am I breaking some Wikipedia policy or other by doing what I did? Hope you don't mind me bothering you, but you seem to be an experienced and level-headed editor. Wakedream (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 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 top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
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!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
Why is it that when I signed an entry with the four tildas... Audio God™ comes up? Any help would be appreciated. Aloha27(talk) 6 January 2008. 16:32 UTC
Thanks so much! Audio God™ was set in preferences, but I don't believe I ever edited anything with that account. Fixed now. (I think, we'll soon see.) Edit.. yep, done. Thanks Aloha27 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article. The best favour, you could do me, is to find all the mistakes of the article, so I'm able to improve it. --Thw1309 (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think, it will get much better within the rest of the week. So you can complete your review now. I have to confess, that I never expected the article to pass, because of the (lack of) quality of my English. In fact, I only misused the system to get the quality review, the review pages did not give. Your review surpassed all my expectations. In never expected such a detailed and qualified review. I'm really impressed.--Thw1309 (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I give you this award for your outstanding work, rating SaarLorLux in the good article nomination. I hoped for a good review, but got much more, than could be expected, because I got excellence. Your ideas and suggestions improved the article much more, than I would have been able to do alone. Thank you very much. -- Thw1309 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your outstanding review. There's only one thing, I want to tell you. You wrote about original research. While I have deleted some of the second example and will add a quote about the rest, the first example about the limited possibilities of the politicians is completely taken from the reference, because I could not find useful references supporting my personal knowledge, that the politicians, without any actual power have enormous possibilities to change things by using their influence. If they can't make a law, they can use a telephone. So, because the alternative would have been adulations, which would have been even worse, I quoted from a conference of politicians of the region (as it looks, those, who are to stupid to use a telephone or to clever, to speak about it). I'm sorry, you had so much work with an article, which, because of it's bad English, never had a chance, to be a good article, but I really desperately wanted some feedback. Happy editing. --Thw1309 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: I will remove the comment about Hassler from your review, because there, Hassler did not tell us her own thoughts (which could indeed be described with Hassler mentioned), but made a report on a conference of the university of trier with politicians from all over the region. So it was not her personal opinion but a summary of the statements.--Thw1309 (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification, and thanks for paying attention. I guess it's safe to say he is an expert - though, his apparent use of a mac may negate his educational credentials. ;^] Tparameter (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment on "introduction to.." at the AfD[edit]
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
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!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Thank you for participating in my 2nd RfA and supporting me! My RfA passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AndonicO and Rudget for nominating me. I also want to thank LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA.
To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible. Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind."
No problem! Glad to be of help if I can. (Expertise? Hardly... but still learning.)
I think the reason Sanders' entry seems to be lacking in volume is that he's not actively soliciting donations. Hard to believe that someone who was at sea, solo for 657 days, (a record I seriously doubt will be broken) is little more than a good paragraph here. Water's still a bit stiff, (32F) and we really don't start to get in the swing of things until late April/early May, with splash around the 15th! Aloha27 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Single-Handed Sailors Hall of Fame website lists his birth year as 1949, but doesn't seem to give the date. I've checked the on-line catalogue at the Colchester-East Hants Library here, but they don't have ANYTHING by Jon Sanders. Sucks to be here in red-rubber-boot Nova Scotia, I guess! lol Aloha27 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues".
During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help?
The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new.
This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings.
Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points.
The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't.
So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions:
Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article?
Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph?
Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting.
Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead?
If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section.
Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons.
Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion!
From the Editors
Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk·contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk·contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
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!
To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
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!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
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.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
French
Deutsch
Thank you! 
