Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Suggestion for backlog

I've nominated many articles for GA status and am worried by the backlog problem. In order to counter the insane amount of backlog (which I believe is caused by the amount of sections- when there were fewer sections, editors were less inclined to nominate- but that's another story), what would happen if we limited each section to five nominations? Raul limited the Today's featured article requests to five (previously unlimited, see here), and it really helped. It created a steady flow of nominations. Limiting sections here would cut down the backlog tremendously. While editors would have to wait until a section decreased in noms in order to nominate new articles, at least our GANs would not keep piling up, and it would feel more controlled. The backlog here almost devalues GA status in my opinion since we currently can just nominate an unlimited amount of articles- why not all of Wikipedia? Would limiting sections help? -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about do away with all the categories. Have a max of say 10 or 20 articles waiting for review. You can only add an article if there is a blank spot, and if there isn't a blank spot, you can make one by reviewing an article. Gimmetrow 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

A thought I had was to time limit the GAN to say 7 days. If no one chooses an article to review, then the article is automatically removed from the page by a bot - like the community bulletin board at the community portal - and a nominator would have to actively re-nom. Thus, no article would go stale from waiting, but the GAN list would be scalable depending on the over all participaion of active and interested reviewers. Lots of reviewers would allow lots of articles to be reviewed in a week. No one home and all the GAN nominations would be returned. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it really be solving anything? Or would we just be fooling ourselves by hiding a backlog that was actually just as real as before? Wrad (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Any of the proposals - queue threshold or time threshold - effectively assigns a 'cost' to nomination and - effectively - puts the back log regulation into the hands of the nominators. The cost, of course, is the nominator's time: time trying to get their nomination in play. Right now, there is no cost to the nominator, so the backlog is entirely regulated by the reviewers. I say, make the nominators pay. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad here. The ideas proposed above are a form of sticking our heads in the sand. VanTucky 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's incredibly dismissive. Gimmetrow 04:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I sort of see where they're pointing at. Removing cats and keeping a threshold of time or queue is just moving the backlog to a waiting list. Of course, the quickest way to run through the backlog would be for us to inject adrenaline and go review crazy, but that wouldn't be very healthy, would it? bibliomaniac15 04:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's say there were 20 spots for articles, and I want to nominate a new one. If the reviewer of the week has just gone through, great, there are three open spots today and I take one. If not, then I pick any one of the 20 articles, review it, and take its place. But if we have no interest in favouring nominators who also do reviews, fine. Gimmetrow 05:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not dismissive to say that the solution being proposed is ineffective. What the subject of this thread is ostensibly supposed to be about is clearing the backlog. Simply removing nominations now present or restricting new ones is not an effective solution, it's just keeping nominations off this page and in the sidelines, making it seem as if the number of candidates is manageable. That's sticking your head in the sand. What you're proposing might be a good idea after the blacklog is cleared, but not during. VanTucky 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this proposal would comprise the quality of the process, as it would create incentive for a nominator to “half ass” a review to quickly open a slot for their article. If people not involved in the project really wanted to be doing reviews, they would already be doing so. We can’t let our desire to eliminate the backlog impact the quality of the reviews. Placing restrictions only hides the problem (per Wrad and VT) or encourages shoddy work.

So far the backlog suggestions have been fairly passive. Why not actively ask people who have already expressed interest to do some reviews? There are 171 people listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles. Why not ask each one to do 2 reviews in the next week; that would be 342 reviews. Obviously, some might not do any and some might do only one; there are, however, some that may do more than two and, as of this writing, we only have 224 nominations. Seems feasible to me. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with elcobbola. The only reasonable solution I see is to do outreach for more reviewers; nominators should be the easiest target, as there's an obvious karmic exchange with reviewing others' articles. But, we needn't limit ourselves to that. I'm just about done with the revamp of the templates and process; while I understand some of you don't think that will make an enormous difference, it still might be a good opportunity to grab a little attention for the project. What do you guys think of doing a little article for the Signpost, (re-)introducing the project, and touting the improved review process? Or, is there another medium besides the Signpost that would be good for this? We could put some individual announcement on various WP talk pages, too. -Pete (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I had thought of the potential for abuse through "shoddy" reviews, and there are solutions to this. But VT's uncivil response discouraged that. Gimmetrow 20:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop throwing stones at me because I dislike a proposal to change the process. I haven't been discourteous to anyone. You're confusing opposition to an idea with an attack on a person, and there's a huge difference. VanTucky 04:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't even bother to provide constructive criticism, but dismissed it out of hand. That's offensive. Or should I say, that's a form of sticking your head in the sand? Gimmetrow 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you guys please take whatever personal beef you have with each other to your talk pages? I don't think it's helping. -Pete (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I think that because Peer Review is not functioning well (many articles get almost no feedback), that affects GAN more than we realize. I believe some editors now use GAN as a sort of peer review, or test run before going to FAC (which is also somewhat overwhlemed lately). I can imagine someone thinking "not much from PR, but at GAN they have to read my article and comment on it." So I think if we could fix or improve PR, that would help GAN (and FAC too - with decent peer reviews, many (most?) articles might go straight from PR to FAC, instead of using GAN as a sort of stepping stone along the way).

It also seems to me that too many review requests and too few reviewers are two sides of the same coin - we have a pool of users who want reviews, and the more we can encourage them to contribute reviews to other articles, the more everyone benefits. I once suggested a sort of Wiki-tax, where requests for PR, GAN and FAC/FLC would be put into a holding area until the nominator(s) came back and added the other reviews they had done (2 or 3 for PR or FAC, 1 for GAN). Only after they had added these could their request leave the holding area and be reviewed (sort of like certifying an RfC, where you need two to agree). Since this is "a form of unfree labor" and we are writing the free encyclopedia, I now agree this was not the best idea. But I do agree that the more we can simplify processes, the more we can encourage others to participate, and the more we can work to fix not just the backlog here, but also the PR and FAC backlogs, the more everyone will benefit. I can see the appeal of a limit on the number of nominations, but I do not think it would be practical. Hope this helps the discussion, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many interacting issues here. Maybe it is time for another backlog elimination drive. In my view, the last one was very successful in eliminating the backlog: it reduced the GAN backlog to 40 articles, which is essentially the current GAN reviewing resource, and we can't ask for better than that. However, it was a temporary fix which didn't solve the problem medium term, as the backlog soon grew again to over 200. We desperately need more reviewers. Whenever you pass an article, please encourage the nominator to review: this has been added to the guidelines. Please also reconsider my repeated pleas to simplify process. Are there any other suggestions? Geometry guy 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think, to create competition, there should be a list kept of users by number of GAN reviews performed. I'm sure a bot would be able to maintain such a list. It has the disadvantage of encouraging quantity over quality, but so do the backlog elimination drives. Epbr123 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If we were to try to create an incentive to clear backlog, I think the backlog drives would work better than a list of reviewers, because I think barnstars motivate people more than having their names at the top of some list. Just my thoughts. I do agree though, that a backlog drive is only able to temporarily reduce backlog. Also, backlog elimination drives seem to create the problem of having many lesser-quality articles passed. Corvus coronoides _talk 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We could have both. The backlog elimination drive would be a short term fix, and the list would be an on-going incentive. Anyway, in my opinion, people would rather be top of a list then get a barnstar. Epbr123 (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Epbr123; lists do motivate people. Barnstars reward past behaviour; but lists provide targets that can spark productive competition. You want someone who is reviewing to say to themselves "Oh, look, if I focus on this task I can get to the top five reviewers list". I'd also suggest doing monthly or yearly lists so that the slate is wiped clean every year and everyone can compete afresh. Mike Christie (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikiproject GA newsletter already sort of does a GAN Reviewer of the Month. We haven't had enough issues yet to get to a GAN Reviewer of the Year, but I like the idea for 2008,... ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Plan of action

So, just to clarify, from what I've been hearing, if we want to tackle this we need to do the following:

• Make one simple GA criteria checklist
• Simplify the instructions/process as much as possible (funneling into the above)
• think about sweeps, lists

I'd get on the template if I could, but since I'm not the best template code guy and I don't ever use the thing, someone else more qualified should probably do. I'll continue to review, but we need to get the ball rolling on this, I would think. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

David, I've been working on {{GAchecklist}}, and I think it's about ready for prime-time. Since one of the main points is to reduce the complexity, it's actually a pretty straightforward template, without much fancy coding. Could you take a look, make any adjustments you're able to, or comment on any that you don't know how to do? Also look at the proposed replacement instructions, which are on that template's talk page. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A usage view needs to be given like the original checklists and templates, so people can see it in wiki syntax, especially for copying and pasting. To have to see the whole template, rather than filling in a field, would be extremely cumbersome. VanTucky 00:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

But that's the whole point! The usage is, "Paste {{subst:GAchecklist}} into the article's talk page. Then use the outline it generates as a place to make your comments."

There's no parameters for the template. Zero. Zilch. Cut and paste, and then start readin'! -Pete (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If all you can do is c/p the subst template name, then how the heck can you add content before hitting the save button? Having to save it and then go back and fill in a review is just as cumbersome and more primitive a process than filling in parameters. I liked the idea of consolidating the templates, but not stripping them of their usefullness as a template. Potentially having a blank template sit on the article before you make your review is going to be confusing to other editors. I might as well just not use a template at all if that's the process. Maybe I'm missing something vital about how it works? VanTucky 01:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I just tried it out in my sandbox. The only possible way to create a presentable review before saving (preview doesn't work) is to use userspace or an external text editor to write the review, then make another copy and paste on to the nomination's talk. I don't really like that. It works well to have a completed review to save, rather than hacking through it and revising on the talk page. Doing that makes reviews look less reliable, and will be confusing besides (when will they know your review is ready to read and respond to?). The fact that there's no way to do so on regular talkspace is, in my opinion, an unnecessary complication to the process of writing reviews. VanTucky 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Pete's idea is that you would subst the template onto the talk page before carrying out your review (i.e., at the same time as adding {{GAReview}} to GAN). Then you fill it in as you complete your review, perhaps in one step for an easy pass or fail, or perhaps in stages as the review proceeds. Geometry guy 10:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, that's my idea, and that's how I'd prefer to conduct a review. But, if someone experienced like VanTucky doesn't like it, that gives me pause. It seems like we have a situation where we should really accommodate two very different approaches to reviewing an article. Not sure offhand what the best way to do that is…whether it's possible to build a template that can accommodate both approaches, or whether this means there's a legitimate need for two different template. I'll give it some thought, and check back for more comments. Thanks, by the way, VanTucky and Dihydrogen Monoxide, for actually putting the new version through the paces, and giving some informed feedback today. -Pete (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think experience has as much to do with it as does the general approach to reviewing. You, and I'm sure others, don't mind building up a review in several steps in article talk. I prefer to have a finished review to place on the page. Neither one is objectively better, to be perfectly honest. I think the simple truth is that a template that allows you to do it my way also allows you to do it in yours (the current larger templates allow you to save a review with parameters unfilled), while the opposite isn't true. VanTucky 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you all know, I haven't forgotten all this, just been a little too busy to rework based on the feedback. I'll be back soon... -Pete (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if another checklist template is the best idea here. We already have 2 or 3 templates that reviewers can use to help format their reviews, and I don't think we want to get bogged down with too many of this (wikicruft, anyone?). Though if we could combined the best elements of all existing templates into one, and promote that one, I'd think that's a good idea. I think it would help some of the new reviewers that may not be as familiar with the GA criteria. Me, personally, I prefer to structure my reviews without templates, and try and write all the issues down in a more plain, out-of-the-box format, referring to the criteria as necessary. So I wouldn't want to be forced to use a template. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Article or list

Well i just rewrote this article and was wondering if there is enough content for it to be considered an article? M3tal H3ad (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's closer to an article than a list. Epbr123 (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow. I can't believe you stole the article I was working on. On my birthday. That's the end of Wikipedia for me. Cheers, CP 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to the nomination and listing structure

Hi there. In a recent discussion I was involved in it was suggested that the nomination and listing procedure for GAC was in need of an overhaul. Based on my work at The League of Copyeditors I volunteered to examine the system and possibly propose some improvements to it. The reaction to the new system at LOCE has taught me that finding out the interests and priorities of those who actually have to use the finished system is imperative in ensuring a smooth transition and the best possible final result. So, I would be very interested to hear any suggestions that users of the GAC system have for its improvement, or features that should be prioritised in a new system. To avoid allowing the discussion to get bogged down and drowning in its own ink, could I request that suggestions be kept as concise as possible, with discussion proceeding in a separate section? Many thanks in advance for any comments and suggestions offered. Happy‑melon 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Please try and keep suggestions concise and avoid lengthy discussion here.

Discussion

More substantial discussions to proceed below.

• I don't find nominating articles difficult. I don't even find signing up to review them that difficult. I find passing them as good articles to be a royal pain in the posterior.Ealdgyth | Talk 14:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to post the {{GAReview}} banner below entry before reviewing

Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but it doesn't appear that some GA reviewers sometimes skip step 2 for article review. It says:

• Paste #:{{GAReview}} ~~~~ below the entry; this avoids multiple reviews of the same article.

Please use this step even if you decide to quick-fail an article. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

GAR reviewers needed

Participation by regular reviewers at Good article reassessment has dropped significantly in recent months. There are several possible reasons: it may be seasonal, it may be because the backlog is quite small at the moment, it may be because several key GAR regulars have recently become admins, and so have many other things to do.

So, this is a call for editors with GAN reviewing experience to contribute to GAR discussions. GAR is important because it determines consensus on good article quality issues in borderline or disputed cases. As such, it interprets the good article criteria in the same way that courts interpret the law. Sometimes this also results in changes or clarifications to the criteria. It is therefore important that editors with frontline reviewing experience join in.

The GA Tasks template, which appears in many places (such as WP:WGA and the GA Newsletter) lists the current backlog at GAR. Whereas in the past, this was not updated reliably, it now automatically lists any GAR discussions which are more than 2 weeks old. Further reviews for these articles are particularly helpful.

Note that you can now watchlist an individual GAR discussion that interests you. If you wish to watch for the addition of new GAR requests, you should watchlist User:VeblenBot/C/GAR instead, as the GAR page itself is automatically generated from this data. Geometry guy 20:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll se what I can do. But I'm really busy. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 21:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to poke in too. (adds one more thing to the list of things to do) Ealdgyth | Talk 01:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. There isn't any imminent crisis or backlog at GAR, just a shortage of regular contributors: any help, however small or infrequent, would be much appreciated. If a few more regulars stopped by just once every week or two, it would make all the difference. Geometry guy 14:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN Reviewer of the Week - w/e 26/1/2008

Judged by the number and thoroughness of reviews performed, I have chosen Ealdgyth as the GAN Reviewer of the Week for the week ending Saturday 26th January 2008. Ealdgyth is therefore awarded with the Good Article Medal of Merit. The top five reviewers of the week were:
1. Ealdgyth
2. Dihydrogen Monoxide
3. Canadian Paul
4. Jackyd101
5. Drewcifer3000.
Epbr123 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

2 in a row - nice. And guess who's back on the ladder! Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Backlog theory

I have noticed that many reviewers are section-specific. I, for example, like to review Literature articles. I have therefore developed a theory that sections which have huge backlogs have those backlogs because the number of writers of that subject exceeds the number of reviewers. I have further guessed that dropping notes asking for reviewers from relevant wikiprojects could help with this backlog. For example, the sports section is huge, so we could drop notes at sports wikiprojects. Wrad (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head here. I snatch up a lot of the Biology reviews, but never do sports or TV episodes. I was just thinking that we need to recruit a sports reviewer. Good work Wrad, VanTucky 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've recently started in the last few months mentioning in the WP:FILMS monthly newsletter that there is a backlog in the film-related articles section, asking members to consider reviewing some of the articles (if they haven't significantly edited the article of course). Additionally, after every GA review I complete, I always ask the nominator of the article or those that are potentially reading the review to consider reviewing an article or two. Usually those that nominate an article in a particular topic area will be more likely to review a related-topic article. We just need to continue to convince people to start reviewing articles and hope that they either offset the number of articles they nominate or hopefully stick around for the long run to review an article a week or a few a month. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I've just been looking at the main GAC page and I think we could work things better. The way the process works at the minute is generally by one user deciding whether or not an article meets the criteria. Whilst I trust many GA reviewers, I do see quite a few decisions made where there's either collusion with the nominator, or promotion without respect for the criteria. What I propose is changing the process to something between AfD and FAC. An article could be nominated for a one week discussion, where users revew the article and decide if it meets the criteria - it allows consensus to be reached to decide if an article is the correct standard to be promoted, and will probably allow articles to be improved through discussion, rather than decisions being made by one person. This would also clear the backlog - an article would be here for one week usually (unless further discussion is required), rather than weeks and weeks on end. If people want this, I'm more than happy to create a firm proposal. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No way. That would take far too long and the backlog is huge already. Where exactly are you seeing problems? If you see them, you can put those articles up at GAR, where the process is pretty much exactly what you propose. Wrad (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be too long - if it's organised like AfD and FAC, it would be over within a week. At the minute, it's hit and miss where you get a review. The process would also allow more input into promotions, rather than just one unilateral decision. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The process sucks. Although we respect the capacity of reviewers here to review, two heads are better than one. I've seen before when one reviewer posted the "I am reviewing" thing and then in less than an hour, s(he) passed it. Is that how we review articles? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And what happens in the very likely event that no one reviews the article in that week? I really don't see this working. And yes, Brit, sometimes that is how articles are reviewed, if they meet the criteria. I would love it if I could do that with every article. I would love it if every article submitted clearly met the criteria. Wrad (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Depending on the article, I think that a hour is probably long enough to evaluate an article, at least for GA standards. As for the proposal, I feel as though if BritandBeyonce feels it is bad now, this process would only make it worse. It would encourage even less stringent reviews and quick glances. It would also increase the backlog, which obviously is already huge. Additionally, I think it might make the process a little too close to FAC, which I believe was one of things to avoid when GAs were first proposed. SorryGuy  Talk  04:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If no-one reviews it, it gets relisted, just as AfD would - likewise if only 1/2 weigh in. It keeps the process moving and allows more people to weigh into discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The process is fine. An hour is more than enough time to review an article for the average wikipedian. Period. End of story. Oh, by the way, get a combine and we'll go race the Amish. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Woah, calm down sir - I was only offering a suggestion :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the main thing is that I'm not seeing what you're seeing. What articles have been promoted recently in which there was "either collusion with the nominator, or promotion without respect for the criteria"? Wrad (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember off hand who, or what articles they were - but I've seen a number of articles "passed" on IRC recently just because someone asked - this is my main reason for wanting to change process. An email can easily win over a promotion. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I never asked for the article to be passed. Nor was it recent. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But if you see a problem you can always challenge the promotion. I don't really see how what you're asking would help. It seems like it would just make things more complicated. Wrad (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually see it making the procedure more efficient - it's not hit and miss, it co-ordinates efforts in one direction. The way I see this process at the minute is quite chaotic, one person can wait an hour to get reviewed, others can wait weeks and weeks - this would keep it in order, and give a more transparent process. Ryan Postlethwaite 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, I think GA is only important because it fill an evaluative function for articles in a way that no other process does. If we make every review collaborative (which would waaaay slow things down), then this would just be the poor man's FA. And it's important to remember that this is completely voluntary for nominators. If the community wasn't comfortable with a review by one person then this would be completely defunct. Instead, the opposite has happened. We are so overwhelmed with candidates for our system that we have a serious backlog. VanTucky 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not care about the backlog nor the quantity of GAs we'll have in the future. How could a certain article merit the GA status if this was just reviewed in less than an hour. How do they review it against sources? Do not tell me they have their own libraries to hastily check the accuracy of the content? And, by the way, GAs that were passed before even missed to comply the guidelines of a Wikiproject an article is under. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't care about things like the backlog and the future of GA, then why are you here discussing the page? Those are integral parts of any discussion about the big picture of GA nominations. As to your vitriol about the quality issue: nothing is perfect, get over it. There are FAs that pass while still in violation of basic tenents of MOS. There are some poor reviewers and bad reviews. But the vast majority of GA reviewers are extremely knowledgeable people and most of the reviews are good, if you look at the ratio of reviews to reassessments. As for changing away from single reviewers to improve quality: as I have already said, this would make GA redundant. To be honest, those who seem to have a big problem with the idea of GA as it exists at all seem to be ignoring the fact that we have hundreds of nominations that contradict their basic beef with the way the system operates currently. If GA was so awful, why do so many still use it happily? VanTucky 06:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats why some articles get FA status with MoS flaws because even on the elementary stages of reviewing articles, we overlooked them. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So the flaws in FA is because of GA? Now that's a lovely little leap of logic. VanTucky 07:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. If we're just a bit strict, FAs would be as perfect as you could imagine Van. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

First, if the proposal went through, I do think the backlog would decrease, and not in a good way. I’ll bet a large number of articles would sit without comments (I believe a common problem at FA) and not get promoted, thus just re-listed. As a frequent nominator and occasional reviewer, I would simply bypass GA and go straight to FA (remember an article does not need to go through GA to get to FA) or simply stop nominating. Second, GA review exists for the stated problem, no need to re-invent the wheel. Third, an hour is often more than enough time to review an article per the criteria. There is not a requirement at GA or FA for reviewers to actually verify the information, and there likely never could be. If there are a total of two copies of one book in the world and only the editor responsible for the article has easy access, it would be nearly impossible to verify the source content. It would be difficult to require a reviewer to request a book through interlibrary loan (or take a flight if not available that way) in order to verify the article is properly attributed. It’s just not practical, and it is not required, so one hour is more than enough time if you know what you are doing. Plus GAs tend to be shorter, only need the breadth of a FA and not the depth, so they can be faster to read through. Lastly, WikiProject guidelines!? No where in the GA or FA criteria is there anything about following WikiProject guidelines. MOS yes, but not WikiProjects. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Very good articles. That's why we want to implement multiple reviewers so that if one user dont have the book, might the other have. Actually, there's no need to change everything in GA. Only to add something in the process of reviewing. Also, if we will just tolerate this things because of the inability to chech the accuracy of the content, kindly totally delete ths bullshit Wikipedia:Good article criteria, as in irretrievable? Pertaining to guidelines, like WP:SONGS, a single pipe linking of Columbia Records to Columbia is ignored. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No FA reviewers ever check book sources. It's just not possible. Epbr123 (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahahaha. That's why Wiki cannot establish accuracy and reliability. Another proposal, kindly delete all criteria which requires accuracy. Duh! --BritandBeyonce (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! It's a big slap to those who formulated such ignored criteria. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Brit, first, the proposal was not to add a layer for people to check sources. Second (per the reference to WP:SONGS a WikiProject), again, WikiProjects have no say as projects on policy/guidelines (they could organize and all go to a policy and gain consensus that way as done here, but not on their own). That is, they do not make the rules on their own, and more importantly FA and GA say nothing about consulting WikiProject rules. Lastly, how is that a slap towards any of the policies. Remember, it verifiable not verified, so the text of an article remains verifiable. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But that's the same thing. Additional editors to reach concensus. They do not make for their own, I believe. Its for the betterment of related articles. Yes, it can be accurate and verifiable, but the endmost thing their is to be verified. Thats how the criteria is. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want things verified, I'd suggest joining that group. Otherwise we generally trust the contributors, and if they do violate that trust then they are dealt with. But with 2.5 million+ (and last time a checked no budget to pay us to do this/provide for a big research library for everyone) verified is simply a great goal to have, but unlikely at this time. Aboutmovies (talk)

It does not mean we have to fact check all of this simultaneously. Every review, there should be a fact checking. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm opposed to this proposal, mainly per VanTucky. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that, whilst this proposal has its merits, similar mechanisms are already in place. Reviewers can request a second opinion during their review; the 'under review' tag specifically welcomes comment by other editors, and the GAR page provides for reassessment if a review is challenged. It would be a mistake, in my view, to over-complicate the system by formalising this and requiring multiple inputs before an article is passed - essentially we would be imposing an artificial 'hold' on every article, whether it is merited or not. I don't see that this would reduce the backlog, merely shift it to other pages. EyeSerene^TALK 10:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What if we'll just impose two reviewers per article? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I still think the process is fine. And if the reviewing process needs fixing, then why are we standing here when we should fix the bump! Instead of tagging it, here's an idea you might want to think about, why don't we fix it ourselves. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but I'm a do'er not a think'er. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 13:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think imposing this would be the wrong way to go. The disadvantages of our single-reviewer system (and to be honest I don't think there are as many, or that the ones that exist are as serious, as some editors think) are far outweighed by the advantages. As I see it, the main draws of the GA process are that it is accessible, simple, and relatively unbureaucratic. True, there have been problems, and probably always will be, but my concern is that adding more layers will kill the very things that make GA attractive in the first place. Your earlier point about fact-checking is a valid one though, and one that can get easily overlooked during reviews ;) EyeSerene^TALK 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I agree with many above. I don't think that a quick vote will help to reduce the backlog. Certain issues such as grammar, prose flow, punctuation errors, exist while evaluating a GA, which IMHO, some readers will not catch or just blindly vote without looking at the article. Also, approving an article on IRC is wrong, mainly because certain articles aren't up to par, yet get approved because of the "my friend is a GA reviewer and he/she owes me a favor" concept. My suggestion to Ryan is to first assess one Good Article Candidate on the page to see how the process works. Second, come back to the discussion and ratify his proposal. Best. miranda 00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why I insist this kind of process is to verify the accuracy of the articles. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FA doesn't even try to verify accuracy. We are just to few here on wikipedia to do that. We assume good faith and trust the editor who wrote it isn't pulling our leg. It's a problem, yes, but it will be awhile before wikipedia can address it. Right now, we just trust the collaborative nature of wikipedia to keep everyone honest. That's just how it is. It's like drinking from a firehose here. Wrad (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

At least, here in GAN, we take step-by-step to resolve accuracuy issues. When do have to do this? When the Wiki contains 3,000,000 articles? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ca existe. Misunderstandings of the GA concept

Unfortunately I sleep when you guys are most lively, otherwise I would have stepped into the discussion sooner. I've just read through it now.

The proposal misses the idea behind the GA "one reviewer" concept, and the response fails to emphasise the following point: any uninvolved editor can, at any time, delist a GA, by following the delisting guidelines. If an article is passed inappropriately, delist it! The whole idea behind the GA mechanism is that it should be easy to list and easy to delist (within 1-2 weeks), so that consensus emerges over time. Okay, so most GA reviewers try damn hard to get it right the first time, but if that doesn't happen, then a GA can be delisted, relisted and so on, until consensus emerges.

In cases of disagreement, or borderline cases, there is a well established process, Good article reassessment, which operates in a similar way to AfD, FAC and FAR/C. Ca existe! The whole point of the GA concept is to use such a process only as a last resort, when reviewing, listing, and delisting by individual uninvolved editors breaks down.

At the moment I think the benefits of this concept are underexploited at GA (for instance, there is too much reluctance among individual reviewers to delist articles with the same care as they would review them for GAN). But taking away the potential benefits of the GA concept is simply a step in the wrong direction. Geometry guy 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

at any time, delist a GA Whats the use of the review? --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He just explained that. Brit, have you ever reviewed an article? You really don't seem to understand what it is you're criticizing. You can easily do a review in one hour. Try it. I'd suggest you take a review on yourself and see what it's like. Don't knock it till you've tried it. Please. Wrad (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yah. I've reviewed several articles but left the decision to others because I can't fact check them for some reasons. If a good review was done, delisting wont exist. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)rep

True, but we're all human ;) It's there for a good reason, although like Gguy says maybe not used enough. However, there's always WP:GAR if you're nervous about making a unilateral delist. EyeSerene^TALK 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) To delist, you need to read the review, the delisting guidelines and the criteria, and then justify your delistment in the light of this information. If you ignore these, someone's likely to take your delisting to GAR. Geometry guy 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We aren't here to review articles against anything other than the GA criteria. We aren't expected to do anything else. If you want to fact check something, then feel free to devote yourself to it and fix the article up. The GA criteria is simple and never takes more than an hour to check something against. That's the way the system was designed. Wrad (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

GA On Hold

A large amount of the articles in this backlog are On Hold. So when the article is On Hold after a fixed time and the review is valid I think that the article should be delisted from the nomination list. Also if there is improvement, but not alot it should still be delisted because that would (in my opinion) mean that the article shouldn't have been put on hold. Another idea is that we should change the criteria for putting an article on hold. However going back to the backlog I think that there are backlogs within this backlog. Tarret ^talk 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious what the line is that reviewers draw between "fail" and "on hold." For me, if an article has relatively significant referencing problems or any breadth problems, I fail it. I only put it on hold if I can count the missing refs on one hand, or it is only missing one topic required for breadth, or if it only has copyediting problems. Otherwise I fail it. What do others do? Wrad (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My view is that the distinction between "on review" and "on hold" is pointless. Reviewers should list all the issues they see on the article talk page, however many, however few, however easy or difficult to fix. Then wait for a week or so to see if there is any sign that these issues are likely to be fixed in the very near future. If not, fail. Some nominators won't fix trivial issues in a week. Some nominators can move mountains in a matter of days. Geometry guy 00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some reviewers put the article on hold for three to five objections, reviewing in just an hour. Duh! Even the use of quotation marks were overlooked! --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts!) I wait until I've written the full review before I make any decision (unless it's a quick-fail, obviously). Personally I like to err on the side of holding rather than failing if I can justify it; I've seen articles with committed editors get brought up to scratch well within the hold period, where I privately thought they had no chance of passing within the next six months. IMO it makes little difference to fail an article on review or seven days later, but it can make all the difference to an editor, who has perhaps been waiting a while anyway, to get a fair crack at fixing things. Does anyone keep records for this? Some stats would be interesting here (ie percentages passed, held, failed etc on first review, and after holds). EyeSerene^TALK 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of my longer holds are for articles that got nominated, and then sat. And sat. After over a month of sitting and waiting for a review, I kinda feel that I should be understanding that folks' ideas of how much time they'd have to address issues might be a bit off. Most of them have talked to me and explained and given me a time frame. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Communication is always good. Wrad (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)