This is an archive of past discussions with User:H1nkles. 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.
There is a discussion starting up at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation), that may be of interest to you. The subject is technically a page move discussion, but the purpose of the discussion is to decide where Batavia should redirect. Until earlier today, Batavia redirected to History of Jakarta, but during this discussion, it is redirecting to Batavia (disambiguation). Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
You are receiving this because you are one of the principal editors of one of the articles that is linked to Batavia (disambiguation). This notice is being posted to all of the top three editors of each of these articles (in terms of total edits), with the following exceptions:
editors who are blocked
anonymous IP editors
editors who, despite ranking in the top three of edits to an article, have only a single edit to said article
This is an attempt to be a neutrally-phrased posting in keeping with the principles of WP:CANVASS. If you find anything in the wording or the manner posted to be a violation of that guideline, please notify me at my talk page.
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot00:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I've had such little time to check in and edit of late i've only just read of your (semi) retirement - sad news indeed. It was always a pleasure to work with you on articles and your insight and diplomacy were often invaluable. I hope you get the time and opportunity to come back at some point and with any luck it will coincide with one of my flurries of activity. Best wishes - Basement12(T.C)01:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Like yourself I felt put off by some decisions/discussions in the myriad of Wikipedia bureaucracy and this, along with real world commitments, led to my extended abscence, but my belief in the Wikipedia project, as relatively small as my contibution can be, and what it can achieve, coupled with my increasing free time, have led to my return. I'm aware of your subpage citius altius fortius and whilst I know I won't be able to achieve even a fraction of what you aimed at I hope you won't mind me updating the page if I do make any progress on it - Basement12(T.C)00:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Please make as much progress as you can on this project. I certainly won't be able to finish it on my own. I think we are in the same boat regarding Wikipedia. My efforts wax and wane, and I could allow what irritates me about Wikipedia ruin my entire experience. But I know that Wikipedia is a noble endeavor and with that in mind we soldier on. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius17:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
If you have the time, I would like to know if I addressed your comments on my article Warning from Space. I am in no way forcing you to re-review my article, as I know this takes much time and effort. I just really want feedback, and as you are already familiar with the article I thought you'd be a good person to ask. Thanks in advance. Regards, --Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 02:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I was able to add the publisher location and page number (for all but one). I'm having trouble finding where you want me to put the link to Google Books, however. Is there a field in the {{cite book}} template?--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No problem I'm glad to help. I know that some of the suggestions or thoughts may be disruptive so I don't want to cause waves in the article. I hope you have great success at FLC. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Art competitions at the Olympic Games
Good to see you doing some editing again :). I've also posted my question at WT:OLY (not sure if you currently watch it) but as I know you worked extensively on the Olympic Games article, and came across many sources in the process, I thought you may have some idea on quite how well documented/"important"/official the arts competitions at the early Games were? It seems articles like 1924 Summer Olympics barely mention them at all yet Art competitions at the 1924 Summer Olympics also exists. Personnally I find the concept of an Olympic gold medal for town planning delightfully perplexing but I don't know how much coverege such events are worthy of. - Basement12(T.C)00:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Olympics
To follow up on the non-article comments from the Kristins Hall review: I have been doing some work with the 1994 Winter Olympics; the article needs a decent copyedit (I just have to get around to it) and it should slide through GA. At the moment the article has some shortcomings that I am very aware of, and currently there is little use in anyone else fixing much to it. Once past GA, I'll need some help to get it up to FA standards, if you are interested in collaborating about that. I've brought or nominated seven 1994 venues for GA, in addition to having brought venues of the 1994 Winter Olympics to FL. On slightly more long term plans, I might do the same with the 1952 Games. I tend to switch a bit around topics, right now I'm doing some stuff on football, so I don't know when I'll be back to Olympics articles. Arsenikk(talk)08:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd love to help get the '94 Winter Games article up to FA standards. It would be great to work with you on this. Let me know when you get the hunger to make a run at it and I'll happily jump on board!!! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius21:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thanks for taking the time to peer review Biblical Hebrew. The review looks very comprehensive and I'm looking forward to following your advice. Take care :) Mo-Al (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you best of luck with the GA Candidacy. Since I did the GA Reassessment I will recuse myself from this nomination, though if the reviewer would like my input I'm but a talk page post away. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius03:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have reopened up the article Walt Disney for peer review over here. I noticed you are a volunteer over at peer review and was hoping that you could provide some time and energy to take a look at the article and provide feedback. Thank you. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with this article. I will follow through on your suggestions as my busy schedule permits as well. Thanks again! Tiggerjay (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello my friend, I've reviewed the Hajdari article. I'll try to get to the other one but I can't make any promises. If you have questions or comments about my review please leave them here as I don't watch the review pages. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius16:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
First I would move the part about his assassination to the end of the first paragrpah.
I would put in a bit about what school he was at when he led the student uprising.
He was attacked on multiple occasions before he was killed. Also what was the reason he was attached so many times. This is something that is a bit ambiguous in the article. There's the issue about the value added tax but other than that I don't see any reason why he was the target of such animosity.
I think it's applicable as it pertains to the asylum case, it's certainly credible. Be sure to include the page number in your reference since it is a multi-page document. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius20:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
And i am looking for international reactions done about the killing, do you know where i can find him? Vinie00720:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Good question without a great answer. He played a key role in Albania's transition from Communism to Democracy so there should be something. You may want to look in google books to see if there is anything in books about eastern Europe's transition away from Communism. I saw some NY Times articles in your references, which leads me to believe that there was some western press coverage of his killing. Perhaps doing a google search of his name will yield some results other than that I wish I had more for you. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius20:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
H1nkles, I'm sure you saw on Malleus' page my discussion with him about the prose. I will try to run through with my own copyedit - but won't be immediate, I'm afraid. Hopefully I can begin tonight. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your help. At this point I'm resigned to a non-promotion. In my experience one oppose usually sinks it, especially from someone with Malleus' credibility. Your efforts will not be in vain though as I do hope to resubmit it. I do thank you for your original review and your prose edits whenever they may be. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius19:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
We might be able to fix this. I have a quick question. Was it the ski-jump at Holmenkollen that was wooden and replaced with a new concrete platform? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Details about the ski jump are at Holmenkollbakken (fully referenced). I find the Olympics article a bit unclear in that the hill had been rebuilt many times between 1892 and 1952, see for instance the difference between 1904 and 1934 (both images). In the 1952 article, it gives the impression that the hill had remained constant since 1892, which is not the case. The bit about the wooden superstructure being replaced with concrete is accurate, though, as this was done for the Olympics. Arsenikk(talk)22:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
If it's in the public domain, I think File:Holmenkollbakken 1952.jpg should go in the article. For those who know, it shows that it's a short jump; for those who don't know it shows that the short jump is still quite big; and the crowds are unbelievable. Definitely an instance when a picture works better than words. I'll have a look at the Holmenkollbakken page and pull out anything I think is relevant. Thanks for this info. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This image was in the article but removed due to an early comment in the FAC about a technicality in Norwegian copyright laws. I find those laws baffling and engmatic so I usually take the editor's word for it and remove. I agree though, and removal was done with a wish it were not so. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius18:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, I'll make the fixes that I introduced while copyediting. If you could check for content mistakes, that would be helpful. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I switched to support, then thought of a way to tweak the Oslo flag sentences and so was bold and did it (add the year fro the Antwerp flag and put the replica at the end so all discussion of the original Oslo flag is together now). Feel free to revert if you think it is worse, Ruhrfisch><>°°19:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I've gone from resigned to failure to now very possible promotion, so FAC is truly a roller coaster. Having the involvement and support of such credible editors makes all the difference. I'd like to improve my writing, which was evidently the biggest hurdle. Regardless of the outcome I'm polishing up my stars for dispersal. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius20:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a worthy topic, which I think helps sometimes. And when people pitch in to collaborate, the finished product is much better than it was when it was nominated. I'm thinking optimistic thoughts for you! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I think as well that editors don't always realise what a big step up FAC is even from GAN. I think for all of us it's bloody hard graft, not just for you H1nkles. And I think TK is perfectly right in what she says about collaboration; many of the things I'm most proud of here at Wikipedia have been the result of FAC collaborations. MalleusFatuorum21:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to find quality people who are willing to roll up their sleeves and help. And you're right the chasm from GA to FA is wide indeed. My next one is going to be more difficult, I have nominated the Winter Olympics twice to no avail, I've had it peer reviewed as many times along with a run through an edit at GOCE. When it makes its next go at FAC it will probably need a similar collaborative effort. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius22:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
The GOCE is ... well, it's what it is. Which in general is not much good at FAC. But you seem to have found a great ally in Truthkeeper, so better luck next time. MalleusFatuorum22:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations H1nkles, and thanks for the pretty star. I thought this article was sufficiently good to get it through FAC and happy to see so many people come together to help. You did the groundwork though, and should be pleased with the result. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you review a page for me?
I was hoping you could do a peer review of Thomas Bridges (Anglican missionary). I have made extensive edits to get it from here to its current state. I would like to get the article to good article status, or at least B class. If you could also offer some advice as to how to write the lead that would be great. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the review. The reference issues may be troublesome for me because I reformatted the article; however, I knew exactly nothing about the subject. How necessary do you think the quotes are? I have been uneasy about them as well, but I don't believe I know how to change it. Ryan Vesey (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Look critically at the quote and ask yourself what of the quote communicates about Bridges' life? Keep that part and get rid of the rest. Make sure your eye is on the topic, which is a biography of Bridges, not a history of the mission. That should help you keep the article on topic. Good job for knowing nothing of the subject. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius15:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I am finally getting to work on it. It seems like I am going to need to strip a lot of the information. Earlier I just removed things that weren't at all related to Thomas Bridges. When I found the article there was a good 4000 bytes of information on the history of Missions in South America with a very Original Research style to it. The introduction to that section stated "To understand the scale of his achievement it is necessary to know a little of the earlier missionary activities in that area." Stripping the rest of the information will be harder. Are you sure Wikipedia doesn't need a page on Missions to Patagonia with a primary focus on the biography of Thomas Bridges? Kidding on that one, but in a more serious tone, would a split of the article into a page, Ushauia Mission or, Missions to Patagonia be more acceptable? Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I hear your concern and it is valid. Yes as long as the missions are notable enough to pass AfD. I would say start with the second one on Patagonia and go from there. I think you're on the right track and with some surgery the Bridges article could sail through GAC. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius15:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I have just made a massive deletion here. I will certainly clean up the section later, but I wanted you to look at it to see if you believed I deleted the necessary information. In addition, I have started an article here with information removed from the old article. It is going to need a lot of work before it is ready and I might need to deal with some attribution issues. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you're off to a good start. I'm still not sure what the large paragraph in the Missionary work section has to do with Bridges. It seems to be a history of what Stirling did with out much connection to Bridges. Make sure you either expand or combine the small paragraphs that remain in the article. Keep up the good work! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius16:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe I have completed my removal of information not specifically related to Thomas Bridges with these edits. I haven't began working on the quotations yet though. Can you see if I removed anything I shouldn't have, or if there are any more specific issues that need to be removed?
I finally found the monument here. This image can't be used because it is copyrighted. In addition, I'm not sure how important it is or if I can find information about the monument. Should I remove it or make a passing reference after the part about his death that "a monument was later erected in his honor." Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's an important part of his life and shouldn't be mentioned in passing. Why was a monument erected? Who established it? Is there a way to contact the person on Flickr and gain permission to use the image in this article? Any monument to a person should have coverage in the article so don't eliminate or gloss over it. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius21:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem is, the flickr image is the only source I can find that the monument exists. Nothing short of traveling to Argentina myself seems like it will give me enough information to back the information up. Can I site the flickr image as a source if the author of the image does not allow me to use it? Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I see, yes that's a tricky one. I did a quick search and couldn't find much on the monument. Also travel sites are frowned upon, and that is what mostly came up, so I can see your problem. It may be worth contacting the photo's author on Flickr and see if s/he would be willing to release it for free use or if there would be a way to allow WP to use it. Not that it can be used as a reference though, that's going to take some more digging. As I recall the picture does not clearly show that it is a monument to Thomas Bridges. We're taking the photographer's word for it. In that case it isn't a credible source. Sorry about that. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius22:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
It's been a while, but I finally got around to modifying the article again. Can you check this edit and tell me what you think about my quote removal?
I think you could add a wee bit back into the quote. I would end it after the "Southern Indian tribes." My reasoning is that he is commenting on the work that has been done and earlier in the quote he attributes this work to Bridges and Lewis, so I think it's fine to add that part of the quote back in. One other thought totally unrelated to your question. I just did a peer review on a ship article and the names of ships need to be italicized. You should do that in this article, especially since the name of the ship is the name of a person, which can be a bit confusing. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius15:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm one of the major contributors of the article List of table tennis players that I have now proposed for peer review. Since in the list there is a special attention to players with achievments in the Olympic games, I guess your opinion could be very useful to me. --Cialo (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello H1nkles. Regarding image use permission, do you think is enough provide the credit to the ITTF photo gallery in the file description (as I did for the picture of Chen Jing) or you think it is necessary to include the credit in the image caption ?
--Cialo (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! SalvioLet's talk about it!23:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Firstly thanks a lot for reviewing this article and for making the suggestions for improvement. I have looked at what you said and hope that I have solved the problems that were in the article before. I've also reviewed the whole article for spelling, grammar and punctuation and added some more info where needed. It would be great if you could have another look at the review now when you get a chance. Best Wishes, Pi(Talk to me! ) 15:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a section about how the Doterel class was based on the Osprey class. Is that how you came to the inclusion that Doterel was an Osprey-class sloop? Do you have any opinion on how we can avoid the confusion?RyanVeseyReview me!17:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Good article review concerns
I have recently finished a good article review for Tim Pawlenty and in light of complete dissatisfaction with the article shown by User:Wasted Time R I would like to ask you to view the review here. Please note that this is an informal request for comment not a formal request for second opinion.RyanVeseyReview me!05:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll give you my opinions here and I can copy them on the review page if you wish, that's up to you. I like your layout of a grid and reviewing w/in the grid, that's an interesting way to do it that I haven't seen before. I also like that you give the person time to work on the article. I (almost always) do that. I've only quick failed one or two articles and this one does not deserve a quick fail. It does however require some work and I saw some red flags that I'll bring to your attention:
First red flag - 19 dead links is a reason to fail an article. It speaks to criterion 2a. All information referenced by dead links is considered unreferenced because a reader can't be expected to hunt down the source if it is dead, that's the writer's responsibility. I don't think I've ever seen a GAN with 19 dead links. Not good and my number one concern.
Red flag number 2 - Wasted Time R's concerns about layout are reasonable and do speak to criterion 1b, which is one part of the MOS that is required for GAs. See WP:GTL for thoughts on layout, the lead of this page does say that complicated articles can be modeled on the layout of existing articles. Bringing in other GAs (not FAs though) as examples is a useful tactic to help make your point about this article. They also set a precedent for how other GAs could be structured. Granted you are making an opinion on how the article should be laid out, but in this case your review acknowledges that the layout is not ideal and that there is a more intuitive way to present the information. On a separate note, the concerns about undo weight (while probably valid) do not bear on a GA review since that is not one of the required MOS criteria.
Red flag number 3 - Along the lines of layout, single-sentence paragraphs should be expanded or combined, in the Layout page of the MOS it says "minimize" single-sentence paragraphs. I wouldn't take issue with a couple in an article of this length. On a quick count I see 7 single-sentence paragraphs and several two-sentence paragraphs. The article is full of short paragraphs that could be combined or (in the case of Approval ratings) made into a list. Though IMO the approval ratings section should be made into prose since there are already quite a few lists.
Red flag number 4 - "Pawlenty oversaw the repeal of the Profile of Learning Kindergarten through 12th grade graduation requirements and sought to reinstate them during his governorship.[108]" Ref 108 is a concern for me, the ref does not address the sentence at all and on top of that it is an explanation with the author's name, date and a WP link to the news paper it was published in. There is no access to verify the information, and it is information that should be referenced per criterion 2b. When I see this sort of ref I start to wonder what else is dubiously referenced?
Those are the red flags I see that would cause me to hold this article. I think work needs to be done. The picture of the supreme court doesn't bother me too much, I see a lot of articles with pictures that seem only tangentally connected to the subject matter I don't think that's a problem. In short I think there are more issues that need to be addressed before the article meets the GA Criteria. Again if you'd like me to post this on the review page I can. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review of my review. One question I have is your statement on dead links. I would certainly like to say that an article should not be passed as a good article if there are dead links, but the article I used to help me with most of my review, Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, specifically stated that you cannot demand the removal of dead links. It may be true that you can state that the dead links should be improved or replaced where possible. I also read throu WP:Layout, I cannot find anything in layout stating that an article must be written in chronological order. Instead, the section seems to deal more with how the section headings are formatted and the position of the lead, body, references, and external links. As I stated in my review, while I believe there are aspects of the layout of the article that should be improved, especially if this will later be looked at as a featured article candidate, I don't think there is anything that violates WP:MOS standards and the article cannot be denied Good Article status as a result. Note that these are just the ideas I have formed after analyzing as much of the good article review policy as I can find and I am certainly open to more suggestions which would improve my review of the article and assist me as a reviewer in general. In addition, if the items that I stated need to be addressed are addressed but there is still disagreement from reviewers, am I allowed to extend the hold for the sole purpose of gaining consensus on whether or not it should be considered a good article? I assume I could extend the hold for anything.RyanVeseyReview me!18:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for this conversation, it helps me to dig deeper into the GA Criteria and expands my understanding of it. Let me address your questions in order:
Dead links: It is true that there are policies called WP:Linkrot and WP:DEADREF that state that information should not be summarily removed if you can't fix the dead reference. But as with any policy the situation is key to the argument. If the link references direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons (all items pulled from the GA Criteria) then it should be repaired and if not then I would fail on 2b.
Layout: You're right that the layout page of the MOS is about headings and formatting of the lead etc. There are no requirements for a chronological vs. a topical layout. So I probably wouldn't fail it on a wacky layout unless it starts to distract from readability or is unnecessarily detailed - a judgment call, as is everything related to criterion 3. I haven't read the article fully through so I can't comment on whether it violates summary style. I'll let you decide that.
Finally remember that WP:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not is an essay interpreting the GA Criteria. It is not policy and shouldn't be adhered to or quoted as such. Frankly I've never read that page and as I reviewed it for my initial reply and reviewing it further for this reply I'm disapponted at the low standards it holds for passing articles to GA. I'd like to say more but I have to jump a way for a bit, I'll be back and conclude my remarks. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I see your comment below and I'll reply to that one below, I'll keep my original reply to your post here if that's ok. The opinions in the What the GA Criteria are not carries as much weight as your opinion or mine. What is key is the GA Criteria themselves. Reviewers will naturally have differing interpretations, which is ok and expected. IMO as long as they can make a reasonable argument in light of the Criteria then I'm ok with their interpretation. You look to be taking a literal view of the Criteria, no problem with that. That also appears to be the opinion of the writer of the essay. I personally take a broader and perhaps more stringent view especially on Criterion 2. I think a GA should have an in-line citation for each paragraph. I have to think that each paragraph will have an assertion that falls into one of the five categories listed in 2b, and if it doesn't then perhaps there isn't a reason for the paragraph. I know I'm speaking in broad strokes here and each article should be judged on its own merits but if I see multiple unreferenced paragraphs I don't look to make sure there's a published opinion I note that there needs to be more references. Usually references are not hard to find (not always as in the case of your Bridges article), so I don't feel I'm asking too much to find sources for their information.
Finally keep in mind that parts of the GA Criteria can't be taken literally. 3 for example, is a judgment call all the way. Is the coverage too broad or to detailed. Does it violate WP:SS? Ok now to your next comment. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note as I have to jump off as well. Prior to reading Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, I had a similar opinion to other editors. Things nominated for Good Article must be great articles. I did some further research and found that the lead to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles states that "Good articles meet a set of minimum standards (the Good article criteria) for quality of writing, factual accuracy and attribution, broadness of coverage, stability, and appropriate use of images." (Emphasis added) I believe the community has created a set of standards that go beyove and beyond those imposed by the Good Article criteria. That leads me to a rather revolutionary idea. Should the current idea of a good article be completely revamped and a "Great Article" standard be introduced? I think then that the good article criteria should remain in place, but it should be reviewed by a much less formal process similar to how articles are tagged as Start, C, and B class. The current Good Article nominations page could then be replaced with a "Great Article" nominations page. The standards could be changed to reflect the current view of many editors as to what a good article is. I know your talk page isn't exactly the place to propose an idea such as this, but I thought I'd bounce the idea off of someone. If something like this doesn't happen then I think editors just need to change their opinions on what exactly is a good article. It is not an exclusive club, but rather a group of pages which have been endorsed by the community after meeting a set of "minimum standards" that I believe all articles should strive to meet. In fact, I think every article can be a good article. Perfection (or at least a close proximity to perfection) is reserved for featured article candidates. On a side note, I will be reviewing the dead links and seeing if any of them affect its ability to pass due to 2b thanks for pointing that out.RyanVeseyReview me!19:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting perspective and idea, let me address it from a practical and then a theoretical stand point. Practically speaking I don't see the idea of scrapping GA Review and creating a Great Article review process having much of a chance of succeeding. I think the time and energy it would take to set up, debate, and establish criteria and then convince the powers that be that it is needed will turn people off. I think you have a better chance of improving what's already in place rather than recreating the wheel if that makes sense. Here's the theoretical response. I agree that my standards for a GA are probably higher than the letter of law, but as you can see I pass far more than I fail. Usually the fails are due to nonresponsiveness, an inablity to fix glaring issues like atrocious writing, or the article is clearly not ready for GA review. I think the GA criteria probably should be raised a bit because as it stands the standards are pretty low. Here's the catch: if there is consensus to raise the standards what do you do with the 12,000+ current GAs? The standards were raised on August 26, 2007. For all GAs (2,808) prior to that date a massive "sweeps" project was initiated. It took two and a half years and many dedicated people to finish it. You can see the running total page here. Obviously when talking about reviewing 6 times that amount of article it would be a never-ending process. So do the GA Criteria need to be tweaked? Probably yes. To what extent? To the extent that it does not require a full review of every GA already passed. I don't advocate educating reviewers to lower their standards but I do think it would be worthwhile to remind people just what the GA Criteria says. You'll need to decide if this is a crusade you really want to take up.
One question, is it acceptable for me to modify dead links on the article even though I am reviewing it? About the crusade, I will probably leave a note on the GA nomination talk page leaving a note explaining my points on reviews.RyanVeseyReview me!23:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No offense taken, I understood the spirit of what you said. So, would you endorse my review as it is right now or do you think something needs to be changed?00:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I would endorse it as you appear to be taking a literal view of the GA Criteria, which is ok, with the caveat that the dead links that reference items from 2b are listed as an issue needing to be addressed or the article fails. Does that make sense? Your point about layout is well taken and if it were me I would encourage the nominator to work on the order to make it more intuitive, which I think you have done. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius01:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I've scanned the discussion at the GA review page and my comments would fall right in line with User:JamesBWatson's comments. He and I see eye to eye on this matter, I can comment to that effect on the page if you like but I don't have much more to add beyond what he's said. My suggestion is to go with what you feel is right, if that is passage to GA then do it and let Wasted Time R take it to GAR and see what happens. Having your review reassessed isn't personal it's just a difference of opinion. You're doing a great job of keeping your eye on the bigger picture and maintaining a level head in the face of some criticism of the article that IMO is a bit overstated. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius15:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
As I stated above I rarely quick fail an article. I see that you noted that the editor was on a break until Oct. That would be reason to quick fail if the article is a long way from the GA Criteria, which it obviously was. IMO the other reasons to quick fail aren't valid:
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that if an article has been at GAN for months that the editor isn't watching and won't quickly respond. That's not a safe assumption and I would be pretty upset if my article had been sitting there for months and a reviewer quick failed it because there was work to do and he assumed I'd lost interest or forgotten about it.
You don't need to hold hard and fast to the one-week hold time. That isn't mandated, but more of a good guideline. If you see a lot of issues don't assume the editor can't get it done in a week. And if the editor is working on the article I'll extend the hold every time. I want to give the article every chance to pass as long as the editor is involved in the process. I had one review that took nearly a month to complete. It was brutal and in the end I passed it and it was later delisted at GAR.
Just because the article will look very different after the suggested fixes are implemented is not a reason to quick fail. It may require another full review but that's part of the process.
I started a good article review on Kingdom Tower (Jeddah) and I was wondering if you could take over. I don't have the energy required to adequately read and analyze the article and come up with a good determination of its status.RyanVeseyReview me!03:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Errors have been fixed and arguments have been made regarding the other issues, I pray look at the article again and reconsider. Also, look at the last 1000 edits and note how long it took to completely transform the article, now ask yourself if a week recess to sip tea is really called for over minor five-minute fixes. Thank you. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I haven't looked at your work, but a week hold is standard for GA nominations, I don't "sip tea", if the work is done before the week is out I'll certainly take a look. If warranted I'll leave further comments at the review page. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius19:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Also note that every single edit to that page has been done from my smartphone. I can only work so fast and copy and pasting to rearrange is impossible without an interim addition of two sections around the desired text, then using cut all. It is frustrating getting edit conflicts, which happened 0 out of those 1000 edits until today. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't notice, nor does my browser tell me if the edits are being done from a smartphone. I'm not questioning your commitment to this article and the hard work you're putting in. I won't touch the article so hopefully you won't get any more edit conflicts. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius21:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I just worked on it, take another look. I think that the only reason the GA criteria is worded so stringent is to over compensate for the incompitent editors who do reviews that would otherwise pass their buddy's article too easily and argue that the guidelines were lax. It's open to interpretation, like "freedom of speech." If 20 editors reviewed this article with no knowledge of the other reviewers I'll bet 18 would pass it as it stands. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not have time to finalize the review tonight. I will work on it tomorrow. I agree that the guidelines are open to interpretation, I don't feel as though my interpretation falls outside the bounds of the guidelines though you probably disagree. A few posts above this one is a conversation between Ryan Vesey and myself regarding the interpretation of the guidelines, it was helpful for me to make sure I am not holding articles to a standard beyond the GA criteria. I can do that from time to time. But I stand by my original assessment that the article as it was presented to me did not meet the criteria. I did not "fail" it though, putting it on hold is simply stating that it doesn't meet the criteria now but here's how it can get there. That's what I like about the GAC process, it's constructive and positive. I hope you feel the same way. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, just thought you might want to take a look back at Kingdom Tower to see how much I've added and improved it even since your nomitating it as a GA, to show that that's not all I was going for (of course it wasn't because I couldn't care less about my bragging rights with wikipedia, in fact I find it's even a rather embrarassing compulsion, which itself begs the question, why did I use my real name? but rather it's all about building a trust and growing knowledge amongst the readers; it is about my only liberal viewpoint that knowledge and information should be as disclosed and freely shared and available as possible, but this does not mean I support subsidized schooling-I'm for education not botched schooling payed for by taxes). Also, to see if you're still happy with it and see it as sufficient and worthy of the GA status you gave it. One user brought up concerns over the quotes, calling them a blatant bias. I disagree with this, but take a look. I would say it has only gotten better since your last involvement. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the user has a point just because too many of the highlighted quotes are supportive of the project. I see roughly 4 supportive quotes, 1 critical, and 2 that just give information. I would try removing some of the supportive and/or adding another critical quote.RyanVeseyReview me!00:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It is always important to be balanced and provide both points of view, I don't rely too heavily on counts though - three quotes for vs. one quote against - though counts do give an overall impression. Consider it something to look out for, if there is another critical quote that would give it more balance. Some of your quotes (in the colored boxes) have spelling and grammatical errors that either need to be corrected (if the error is on the part of the editor) or a (sic) needs to go after the errors if the mistakes are on the part of the source. Check out WP:QUOTE, I think it might be redundant to have the quote in the body of the text and then in the colored call-out boxes. I'm not 100% on that so you may want to check. Overall the article is making great progress, I love the financial section, that's a big boost. You indicated a desire to move this to FAC, if so I would suggest posting at WP:PR for a peer review, and make sure that it's stable (there isn't new news coming out every week). Keep me posted as things move along. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius17:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, it's true that G. sent no athletes to Winter Olympic Games in 1960. Apparently the reason was no other than lack in Greek athletes for winter sports to represent G. at Olympic level this particular year, as these sports were least popular in Greece due its sunny Mediterranean climate in connection with absence of winter sport facilities at that time. That's why, in the early postwar decades, you noticed that the Greek participation ranged poorly from 1 to 3 athletes. As to the standard bearer, in fact he was a Greek consulate clerk, whose presence subscribed invariably to G.'s symbolic status in modern Olympics as carrier of ancient Olympic heritage. Hope Wikipedians will be enjoying soon your article. Polyklinj (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a webpage in Greek ("The history of Winter Olympic Games") which reviews briefly the history of the Games in chronological order from the first organisation in 1924 to the present, adding the Greek participation data. It cites the particular piece of information about the standard bearer of the consulate in the Games in question. Btw it features the 4th Winter Olympics in Garmisch- Partenkirchen, Bavaria (Germany) in 1936 as the landmark Games where Greece was first represented in the sports by one athlete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyklinj (talk • contribs) 17:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
OK I've done an informal review and listed several points that should be addressed prior to nomination at GAC. One thought to share is that I see you have about 15 edits on the article. A point of courtesy: If you decide to nominate it to GAC and you are not one of the top 5 contributing editors then please notify the primary editors of your nomination. It's a good thing to do to show respect to the people who put in the heavy lifting on the article. I don't know if that is something you're aware of but I thought I'd bring it up just in case. Good luck! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius17:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. I really haven't done a ton with the article so far, but I was finding it hard to get started. The page seemed overflowing with lists and tables. God bless you too.RyanVeseyReview me!18:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Special Barnstar
For your review in a Peer Review for Fallout 3. Thanks to your suggestions to improve the article, I improved it and it is now a Good Article. Thanks for your help. SCB '92 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I have addressed many of the issues you laid out in your examination of the article. I still have reference work to do and the lead has not been touched, but I was wondering if you could begin a more in-depth review of the article. I was also hoping you could offer an opinion as to what should be included in the popular culture section. Personally, I think it would be easiest to scrap the entire thing; however, the guidelines seem to indicate that it should exist.RyanVeseyReview me!04:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The writing is pretty good (GA standards) and the one sentence that I caught was more the exception than the rule. The sourcing might be time consuming though. Best of luck! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius19:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I found a relatively high amount of copyvio while working on other sections as well. Information I modified with this edit was mostly copyvio. I would like to see what Moonriddengirl thinks before accepting the copyright status of the article as it is.RyanVeseyReview me!19:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
GA is just the midway point, my true goal is FA. Now, an FA wouldn't be thrown off because I will be going to Penn, right? An argument for COI can't be made if my additions do not express my conflict. The only true conflict I believe would be if I reviewed it in any way.RyanVeseyReview me!20:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
No, being a student should not be considered a conflict of interest. Reviewers may look a little closer at whether it's balanced if they know you're a student so be aware of that. Have you put an article through the FAC process yet? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius20:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
No I haven't, I've got a couple articles going through the GA process, only one where the review has been started. Up until now, I haven't seen an article that I thought I would be able to get to FA.RyanVeseyReview me!21:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, well I hope it's a good experience for you. Honestly it's tough to have people shred your article, and you'll need a thick skin to go through it. I think you have enough input to get the article through GA. If you'd like some help when you get past GA let me know. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius21:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
GA on hold
I have reviewed the 1960 winter Olympic games article and wanted to let you know that i have put the article on hold for 7 days (as of the review date). What needs to be changed has been left on the review discussion page. The discussion page can be seen on the articles talk page.--Dom497 (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you nominated this at GAC on 8/21, I'd like to be fair to editors who have had articles at GAC for months and review their articles first. I'll keep tabs on this article and if it isn't reviewed in the next couple of weeks I'll happily do the review. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius21:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Good Article promotion
Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making 1960 Winter Olympics a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated.
