This is an archive of past discussions with User:Drewcifer3000. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. :) Just wanted to point out that when we merge an article, we place it into Category:Redirects from merges by adding the template {{R from merge}}. I'm working on adding it to this little run of NIN songs, so you don't worry about that; this is just in case you run into this situation again. That keeps the articles from being deleted, which is necessary for GFDL compliance. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I've run into a lot of these merges, so I've gotten used to them. :D There's about a billion different things to remember, it seems, when editing Wikipedia. Just about the time I get one process down, I run into a whole new one I get to figure out. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Carrie Underwood discography
I'd closed the FLC nomination because obviously, there was still dispute over the way the article should be presented. I'd noticed you suggested we should vote on the format, which I must admit was a good idea. So I was wondering if you would perhaps voice your opinion at the talk page here. Cheers. σмgнgσмg(talk)09:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nine Inch Nails Project
If you meant the stray marks at the bottom, I removed them. And the new template should be updated about twice a week to reflect the current status of the articles. If you meant some other variation on the preexisting page, I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. John Carter (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure what you mean. In the prior version as I see it, the assessment box was aligned to the right with the members box below it and aligned to the left. Now, the assessment box and members list are both aligned to the left. But let me see if I can change the locations of the boxes back. John Carter (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a form message being sent out to all of the GA sweeps reviewers. Thank you for all of your dedicated work in the difficult and time-consuming task of ensuring the quality of articles within the GA project. Many reviewers have taken time out of reviewing articles at WP:GAN (this may be one factor in the expansion of the backlog), writing articles, and probably getting some sleep! I have sent this message out to update you on our current progress and to remind you to please keep up with completing your reviews and updating GARs/holds. As of March 1, 2008, we have swept 20% of the 2,808 GAs we started with. At our current progress, all of the articles will be assessed in just under three years (based on when we started). If we want to complete the sweeps sooner, we need to continue reviewing at a higher rate (consider doing one or two more reviews a week or whatever you feel comfortable with) and inviting new, experienced reviewers. If you are taking a break, focusing on GAN, writing your own GAs, or are already reviewing articles like crazy, I still want to thank you for all of your hard work and hope you are pleased about our current progress. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident
Further to your review of the above, there is a new debate raging on its talk page about one user's attempt to change the name of the "Government actions" section to "Government propaganda". Your views as a GA reviewer would be much appreciated. Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
Thanks for your kind words and sorry the FLC was unsuccessful. I had a couple of ideas that may help improve the list - you may want to see about making it a sortable list. I also thought about adding the film grosses to the list itself as a last column. I also think at least one ref per table would help with the citation concerns. I would be glad to look at it again after you have improved it. Yours, Ruhrfisch><>°°16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I cannot translate that for you, because it's Italian. Haha. No wonder your translations are not working. However, since Spanish and Italian are so very similar, derivatives of Latin as they are, I can understand a vague gist of the message. Which is basically, "Sure that's fine, just as long as you give me credit." --Josiah Bartlet, President of the United States (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jed Bartlet (talk • contribs)
Spanish
Do you still need that authorisation letter? I haven't been logged in for the last month so I just read that you needed it--Shadebug (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No, wait, just read your archives. Sorry I couldn't help this time round, but let me know if you need any help with spanish in the future--Shadebug (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think I can do that sentence translating, as long as they're not hard, even though I have been under training, I have forgotten some of it. But I think I can do it for you. I'll try. --RoryReloaded (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
He actually already gave you the permission.
He literally says:
'Hi, I am happy that you're using my photo on wikipedia. I'd also be happy to give it with a gnu license:the only thing I ask is to be given the credit of the photo.'
Hey Drewcifer, thanks so much for your in depth scrutiny of my currently featured football manager lists. I've responded to your comments and, in most cases, I'm working on their solution if possible. I'd be extremely grateful if you could could agree/disagree/comment further on the points you've raised in each one so that the FLC process can carry on smoothly! I should have just started with one list and acted on the comments across the others before I nominated them but I got too keen for my own good! Cheers again for your time and comments... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support and comments so far, I've reworked as many of the citations on the CWC article as I can find... I hope it meets with your approval! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
You were kind of right about teh comparison between song and album. Anyway, I'm sorry it was closed too. I don't think enough editors responded/returned to reconsider their votes, and I'm not sure why. Tinker with the article some more and then if you nominate it again, maybe notify person's associated with the the Album Wikiproject or Trent Reznor to see if they will review it. Best wishes!--Esprit15d • talk • contribs12:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits. The new cites are fine. I did not replace the dates with years, but I hope you are okay with this. I realize this jars against elsewhere in the article, but I felt the ability to order by date was important. Also the dates in particular have more significance as these are live performances, not really releases. Would you be willing to support? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I worked with you in the GA nomination of the Batwoman article and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing Janet Jackson since the nomination page is back logged. If you decide to, I thank you in advance. If not, don't worry about it. Have a great day! Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. I don't know ow to say this, really, bu I think the discog you were looking at wasn't Bloc Party's. Nothing you metioned appears in that page. I think you might have looked at Crowded House discography by accident. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•@23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
First, thanks for the comments and help towards improving List of songs in Guitar Hero as an FLC. Those helped a lot. Now, I'm prepping the GH2 song list at List of songs in Guitar Hero II for the same, and so I've already created tables for everything, but there's one aspect I'm looking for an opinion on, specifically dealing with masters vs covers. In the first game, this wasn't a problem: all songs of one section were covers, all others were masters, but that's mixed in GH2. In the past, non-table version, the trick has been to bold the song and artist in the list to indicate the master recording, but in a table, one can use {{y}} and {{n}} checks and x's to indicate this, and gain sorting on masters. One editor has expressed that this approach is not as clear, and the sorting on master-vs-cover is not as much benefit. So, not so much as reviewing for an FLC but just as a second opinion, if you could check the GH2 song list and let me know which way you think is better (compare to, say List of songs in Rock Band which uses bolding), that would be very helpful. --MASEM23:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
Hey thanks for the review. I'd like to point out some pretty major things that are wrong with it though. Style/influence/controversy sections are not required for GA (belive me, GA bands differ alot from FA bands). Maby check out some other heavy metal GAs to see what I am talking about. The lead is alright because it is a pretty short article. If you really think it should be expanded, I can do that. There are really no need for any other reviews in the history section, I mentioned one band review in The Crusade section. That kinda goes back to what I said about Style sections that are not needed for a GA. The rest I can take care of though. Also, your review of The Crucified had some of the same issues. I don't know if you saw the discussion above the GA review, but there was kind of a consensus that the refs were fine. Please take another look at them and other metal GAs and reconsider. Thank you very much. Cheers, Burningclean[speak]20:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I don't know if you looked at all, but there really aren't any other sources for the Crucified. I kinda thought that if it is written to the best of its ability it would be a GA candidate (any thoughts on that?) I didn't really realize how many do have additional sections. Sorry about that. You are actually the very first reviewer of mine that has mentioned anything about additional sections in a GA. I personally don't like to have style sections in GAs becuase usually they are written very brief and leaves you with not much info at all. That is my reason for beliving it should be in FAs, where they are very informative and cool. Thanks again, Burningclean[speak]01:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments regarding the Brotherhood of Man article which I have rewritten. Lots of interesting points and I have taken a number of them on board. Certainly I have now expanded the opening paragraph and moved around the refrences within the text. Unfortunately a bit late to check all the sources again to state their origins. I did attempt to move the discography to a new page, but unfortunately, I got a bit carried away with the detail and now the sister page is probably longer than the main page! So I've brought the discography back to where it was, to even out the new page I've done - I think it's okay. Just one point I sort of don't agree with however (not a big one though) is you say the dates and places of birth are unnecessary. Surely in a biographical article, these are usual? or have I got that wrong?
Thanks for the comments, Drewcifer, I've addressed them now apart from I cant seem to work out how to center the numerical data. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed most of your typo issues
I didn't run Brightorange's script, because I didn't think I'd have to until the FA nom. It does raise a question though; what is the difference between a GA and an FA? I am getting the strong feeling that, even though this article is still B-class, reviewers are treating it as if it were an FA nom. If an article that has 98 scholarly references can be classed in the same category as articles with no references at all, I have to wonder what the purpose of the GA category is. If this issue of alternate theories is a deal breaker and you cannot accept the article as is, then you may as well declare the nomination dead, because such an addition would require far longer than a week to do. It would require locating some very difficult to find sources and expanding the article by at least 50%. I was hoping I could address the issue by focusing on the nebular hypothesis, but it seems this is a real stickler. Serendipodous13:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem with mentioning earlier hypotheses, such as religious beliefs, is that to apply the term "Solar system" to those periods is anachronistic in the extreme. The Bible makes no mention of other planets in its creation myth, and tells the story of creation from a geocentric point of view. You can't speak of a "solar system" until the heliocentric view became predominant, which didn't happen until the late 17th century. The term "solar system" isn't recorded until 1704. Even then, we aren't strictly talking about a "solar system"; what we now call the Solar System was still considered the entire universe. The idea of a "solar system" didn't really stick until the 19th century, when Father Angelo Secchi discovered that the Sun was a star. Such early ideas belong in an article about the creation of the universe or the creation of the world, but the Solar System, being a purely modern concept, should be discussed in purely modern terms. Serendipodous07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
