This is an archive of past discussions with User:FamicomJL. 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.
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
A new feature for the newsletter is the member interview segment, seen to the left of this newsletter. Each week, a user will be interviewed in a questionnaire. Other users will have the chance to submit questions to ask the user (to be included in the interview). Questions can be submitted here. If you would like to be interviewed for a future issue, go to the newsletter's talk page and apply there.
We still need people to contact us about current events. If you know of any in the wrestling world that is worth notable in the next issue, or wish to comment on any other aspect of the newsletter, then please contact us here.
You are receiving this because because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. By default, the full newsletter is sent to your talk page. However, you have several delivery options at your disposal. Below are the options:
I'm checking to see that what you objected to in your GA review has been taken care of. If not, please let me know what more I need to do. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
In Your House 1 and Vengeance (2006) have each been listed for peer review. Please review these articles and make suggestions for their improvement. Their respective peer reviews can be found here and here.
The recent focus on improving stub articles has reduced the number of stubs from 777 to 732 since December 15. For more information, check out the stub article subpage.
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
You are receiving this because because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. By default, the full newsletter is sent to your talk page. However, you have several delivery options at your disposal. Below are the options:
Delivered: 13:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)
Blue's Clues
Famicom, I noticed that you removed the GA nomination tag from Blue's Clues. And then your edit note said that it wasn't nominated. But it was! I nominated it myself. What's up with that?! ;) I also noticed that the article is missing from the GA nomination list. I'm relatively new to WP, so I'm clueless about a good many things. Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The focus on improving Stub-class articles is continuing to pay off, as the number of stubs has reduced from 732 to 717 over the past week. To see a list of important stubs that need some work, or to suggest a stub that you think should be improved, check out stub article subpage.
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
Due to the length of the queue list, we will begin doing two interviews a week. This week's interviewees are The Chronic (link) and Gavyn Sykes (link).
Next week's interviewees are Speed CG and Nikki311. Submit a question to ask them here.
You are receiving this because because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. By default, the full newsletter is sent to your talk page. However, you have several delivery options at your disposal. Below are the options:
Delivered: 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)
Don Kent - GA Review
Hiya, sorry I didn't reply earlier but I've been away from Wikipedia and just got back today. I saw that you reviewed and failed the Don Kent (wrestler) article for lack of sources. I just want to inform you that everything in the article is sourced, when the same source is used for multiple statements I've only put it at the end otherwise I'd end up repeating [1] 4-5 times in a row. Seeing how I think it's mistakenly failed I'll put it up for GA again and I will be around to address any concerns. Thanks. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Quick fail question
For clarification, when you said that The Carpenters passes the quick-fail criteria, does that mean that the Carpenters is ready to be quick-failed or that it passed the test for quick-failing, so thus it's okay? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions03:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
SummerSlam (1994) and Royal Rumble (2005) have been listed for Peer review. Please review these articles and make suggestions on how they can be improved before they are nominated for Good Article status. Their respective peer reviews can be found here and here.
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
Several wrestling news sites report that former Total Nonstop Action Wrestling stars Ron Killings and Chris Harris have been in talks with WWE. In addition The Big Show is said to be returning as well. Be on the look out for unsourced claims of these signing being added to their respective articles as well as the WWE Roster article.
The focus on improving Stub-class articles is continuing to pay off, as the number of stubs has reduced from 717 to 706 over the past two weeks. The goal for this week is to get it down to 700, so please check out the stub article subpage to see what you can help with.
You are receiving this because because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. By default, the full newsletter is sent to your talk page. However, you have several delivery options at your disposal. Below are the options:
Hi! It is great to see you back here! I will also support any effort on your part to get a better image up there. The piano image actually would have been fine as well, since it was taken by photographer Neal Preston in 1980. A non-free rationale would work just fine. We just need to assert our power a little more here. By the way, the same dude who insists on the horrid 1984 picture tried to take the current non-free image away from the Selena page. Do you know what happened? They quickly reverted it and told him to get lost. We should stick up for the Freddie page in the same kind of way.Boab (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
I think the article has been on hold for more than a week. The editors have no responses, and with no further notification, it should be failed. I want to do the move but you have to do it since you're the reviewer. Thank you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Game Show Network
Pardon me, but wouldn't it be better if the current logo was posted? I mean where it should say "Get in the Game" instead of "The Network for Games". You might be able to find one on the website.-71.63.42.172 (User talk:71.63.42.172|talk]]) 17:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Royal Rumble (2005) has been listed for Peer review. Please review this article and make suggestions on how it can be improved before being nominated for Good Article status. The peer review can be found here.
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
Ron Killings and The Big Show are still being reported as to having signed WWE contracts. As there is no reliable source for anything of the sort, be prepared for their names to be continually added to the WWE Roster article and information about their returns being added to their own articles. There is also apparently an audio interview with Killings where he states he will be returning to WWE with his old K-Kwik gimmick.
Bobby Lashley is being reported to have been released by WWE. His profile has been removed from WWE.com. But again, there is no reliable source for his release, so be prepared to revert his removal from the roster article and edits to his own article.
*The number of stub articles increased this week, but a large jump in the number of total articles means that the percentage of stub articles still dropped from 21.63% to 21.51%. Please check out the stub article subpage to see what you can help with (even if you can only add a reference or two).
Professional wrestling articles by quality and importance
You are receiving this because because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. By default, the full newsletter is sent to your talk page. However, you have several delivery options at your disposal. Below are the options:
Delivered: 18:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)
Thanks!
Hey FamicomJL, how's it going? It's been a while since I've talked to you. I just wanted to thank you anyway for reverting the vandalism done to my userpage. It's nice to know people out there who have your back! :) Cheers! RyguyMN (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Take your own advice on civiility, please
For someone who highlights this at the top of his page, you sure weren't civil with the Password Plus/Super Password revert. Dgems (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Royal Rumble (2005) and Over the Edge (1998) have been listed for Peer review. Please review this article and make suggestions for how it can be improved in preparation for a Good article nomination. Their peer reviews can be found here and here.
Ron Killings is still being reported as having signed a WWE contract. As there is no reliable source for anything of the sort, be prepared for his name to be continually added to the WWE Roster article, and information about his return being added to his article. There is also, apparently, an audio interview with Killings where he states he will be returning to WWE with his old K-Kwik gimmick. Recent SmackDown! Taping spoilers indicate that he debuted under the name Kwik Killings in a Dark match. No reliable source has reported this as of now, however.
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
LAX has been promoted to admin status. His RfA can be seen here.
Next week's interviewees are D.M.N. and 3bulletproof16. Submit a question to ask them here. 3bulletproof16 has confirmed that he will indeed be taking part in the interview, even though he has retired.
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has dropped by 45 while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
Professional wrestling articles by quality and importance
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.
Ron Killings is still being reported as having signed a WWE contract. As there is no reliable source for anything of the sort, be prepared for his name to be continually added to the WWE Roster article, and information about his return being added to his article. There is also, apparently, an audio interview with Killings where he states he will be returning to WWE with his old K-Kwik gimmick. Recent SmackDown! taping spoilers indicate that Killings has already debuted under the name Kwik Killings in a Dark match. However, no reliable source for this information has been found yet.
The article collaboration for March 3 through March 16 is Ric Flair. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, March 16.
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has dropped by 45 while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
Professional wrestling articles by quality and importance
Delivered: 21:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:FamicomJL. 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.
