Hello, Thurgate, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Hi Thurgate. I'm glad to see you getting involved with a variety of areas on Wikipedia. Thanks again for reviewing my article for GA-status. I just wanted to let you know that there are a couple of steps to take once you've decided to promote an article, which I did for you this time. The first is replacing the GA nomination template on the article talk page with the GA status template (see here for example). Then, you'll need to add the article to the WP:Good Articles page in the appropriate section (see here). There are also instructions at the top of the WP:GAN page for articles that need to be put on hold or failed (in the green boxes just above the table of contents). Let me know if you have any questions, either here or on my talk page.
I have a few books that might be useful for the British battleships you're planning on working on (see here for the books I have), so let me know if you want some help. I can also point you to Sturmvogel 66, who wrote all of the articles on the British battlecruisers; he'll also have sources that might be of use to you. Keep up the good work! Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again thanks very much for the information. Thanks for helping me out in the GA-status issue as I was a bit confused as to what I needed to do after I had reviewed the article. Thurgate (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem at all - we all have to learn at some point, right? And let's face it, a lot of things here aren't the easiest to figure out on the first try. Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Thurgate. You have new messages at Talk:Flight deck cruiser/GA1. Message added 23:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Duke of York
I just reviewed this article and you've done well to bring it up to B-class. However, it's still got a long way to go before it's ready for GA, IMO. If you'd like to work together to prepare it, let me know, as I'd be happy to help out. In the meantime I'd suggest adding links to the other ships mentioned and linking the jargon that naval books love to use. I'd also suggest putting it in strict chronological order as the bit about Torch is after the Battle of the Barents Sea. Detailing each of the convoys that the ship provided cover for would also be a good thing to do. You've got a good handle on the basic sources on the ship, but I think that sources that cover the sea war and individual battles in more detail would be useful. I don't know how far you want to take this article, but there's really no reason why it can't go all the way to Featured Article. Looking over the existing OMT FA-class articles would be handy as a guide to how to write those type of articles and what level of detail is necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for reviewing the article. I would absolutely love to work with you on the article, as I don't have many sources (unlike yourself, who has more books on ships then my local library!) and to be honest at the moment I am just trying to work on getting all of the King George V battleships up to GA. Then I shall go from their. Thurgate (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll pop in from time to time in the short term to see how you're doing and to make suggestions as I want to finish off my collection of RN ship GAs from A to Z with HMS York. But once I finish that one I can focus on filling in Duke of York. Don't be shy about asking questions of me about how or why I do things a certain way. Think about getting books from Inter-library Loan, depending where you live, to fill out your articles. I've scanned many a book that I've gotten from ILL; it's paid itself off many time over as I don't have to photocopy anything anymore. Books like Rohwer are pretty much a necessity if you want to work on WWII ship articles and sometimes they're not very expensive if you're willing to buy them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just ordered the Rohwer book that you have in your collection (as it was only 18 pounds of amazon). I have never heard of a Inter Libary Loan in the UK, so I think it might solely be something you have in America! Once again thank you very much for the comments and when you are finished with your articles I look forward to working with you :) Thurgate (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check just to be sure, but I don't have much hope. On another note, what books would you recommended I get relating to British battleships? Thurgate (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Burt's three books and Raven and Roberts on BBs of World War II. And Oscar Parkes is useful as a supplement. Only Burt's book on pre-dreadnoughts is liable to be reasonable in cost, though. Details are in my library listing. I rely more on them than I do on Garzke and Dulin, to be perfectly honest, although I haven't done much with the BBs other than a couple of the early ones as I've been focused more on BCs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might have to look into securing some of those books. Its so irritating though I could get Burt's book on German battleships for 20 pounds, but the cheapest I can find for his book on British battleships is 150 pounds of amazon. Why are none of these books printed any more!! Thurgate (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Locations of publisher needed for all references as are the series and volume numbers of each book, if any. Separate fields are available in the book cite template for all this.
Radars are missing from the infobox; provide links for all radars as well.
From my sources it seems that the Duke of York didn't have any radar when completed, but during her numerous refits different radar sets were added. So shall I list all the radar added from her refits? Thurgate (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A related question is that you give armament stats for 1945. It's your call, but I'd suggest that you give all stats as completed as it's trickier to work backwards using your refit listing than it is to work forward.
I normally link jargon and terms twice, once in the infobox and once in the main body of the article, but that's just me.
Everything in the infobox needs a citation for GA, either in the infobox itself, the less preferable method, IMO, or in the main body in a couple of descriptive paragraphs. I think the latter is a far better way to do things, but it does cause a few problems since it's very difficult to summarize the armour suite.
Remember that this is an individual ship article, not the class article which should be replete with technical details on weapons, stats, etc. The focus of this article are the ship's activities, not turret weights or propeller size. Most of that sort of stuff belongs in the class article. The only arguable exception are weapon stats as some readers like to know shell weights, muzzle velocity, and ranges in ship articles so they can mentally compare them to other ships/weapons. But that's really a matter of taste, I've gone back and forth on including that level of info in ship articles.
Stuff more suitable for the class article: propeller size, firing arcs, turret weights, etc. Again, review some of the FA-class ship articles and make a note of what they cover in the basic ship description. And do the same here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chesneau and Konstam differ significantly on the details of the refits and I can't be sure which is correct, although I lean towards Chesneau, until I get Raven and Roberts sometime this week once it's delivered to my local branch.
Yep I've found that. I'm going with a even split at the moment, but once you have any more information on the matter I'll change it per your suggestion. Thurgate (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just having a look at Chesneau again and I see what you mean, so do you think it would be better if I ditch the Konstam's ref's and instead go with Chesneau's version of the refits? Thurgate (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Konstam's written a lot about ships of different eras, but I'm not sure that he's really mastered any of them. I don't believe that the Osprey's are necessarily very reliable and value other books on the same subject more highly. OTOH, they're a good beginning reference. Anyway, I'd go with Chesneau and delete any and all references to Konstam if they're not supported by one of the other sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of this stuff is a lot of work, as you may be finding out, so I tend to finish one article off before starting another in the same class so I can copy/paste the infobox, the references, and the ship description and make any necessary changes. I'd strongly suggest that you hold off on working on any of the other ship articles in this class until we get this one up to speed and then you can copy things and save yourself a lot of work in the meantime.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just got Raven and Roberts a few minutes ago, so give me a little bit of time to thumb through that and make comparisons with Burt, Chesneau, etc. In the meantime I'd suggest you look through any of the FA-class ship articles and compare it with what you've got thus far.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen it, so I really can't say how good it might be. I've a few of his other books, though, and they're not that great. Certainly not up to Raven and Roberts or Burt.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not yet. I've rewritten a lot of the description, deleting extraneous bits, but it still needs text covering the pom-poms and the unrotated projectiles. And you need to clarify the stuff that I tagged (my comments will be visible in edit mode). You mentioned radars for the pom-poms, but don't ever say what pom-poms are. The service history is still lacking. For one Renown and Kenya are not destroyers. Always add the ship type when mentioning a ship for the first time so a reader doesn't have to go to the link to figure it out. The early service needs more details. More detailed comments on the service section later.
By now I hope that you understand that I'm fairly strict on grading articles for GA for which this much info is available. But, I promise that you, by the time that we're done here, the article will be able to pass an ACR without too much trouble and could go for FA as well. I just tend to front-load the work required rather than add more details, etc. at each higher level.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You no what your doing unlike myself and it will only mean less work in the future, so its a bonus really! I am also trying to secure a copy of Raven and Roberts as it's currently going on e-bay for the cheap, cheap price of 25 pounds, so hopefully it wont sky-rocket in price and I will be able to get it. Also thanks once more for the detailed and extremely helpful comments! Thurgate (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did some surgery on the article. No UPs were ever deployed on the ship, just on KGV and PoW. Lead is too short and you have an odd shift in the beginning of the service section from chronological to geographical sequence and back again that needs to be fixed. Try and get one sentence in the lede from every paragraph in the service section. Other than that you can probably send it up to GA for somebody else's opinion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the lead and sorted out the service section so see if you think it works now. Also thanks for fixing everything in the article! Per your suggestion I'm going to put it up for a GA review. Thurgate (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yer that would be sound. I was just going to go into it after I've done the individual ship articles, but if you got the sources we can on to it now tbh. Thurgate (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your recent edits. I really think you need to discuss these major edits on the KGV class talk page, of very well sourced material before making such bold changes.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Thurgate. You have new messages at Talk:CAM ship/GA1. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Thurgate. You have new messages at Talk:Bold_Orion/GA1#Comments. Message added 01:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Email
Hello, Thurgate. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.
During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,
522 GA nominations were undertaken.
423 GA nominations passed.
72 GA nominations failed.
27 GA nominations were on hold.
We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.
At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).
While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).
National Maritime Museum Warship Histories project is go!
Hello! I'm very pleased to say that the collaboration with the National Maritime Museum which I mentioned earlier in the year is going ahead. They have put a load of their data on Royal Navy warships up on their website. Please do drop by Wikipedia:GLAM/NMM to find out more, start work, and/or help suggest ways of moving forward. :-) The Land (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thurgate, I noticed you put Duke of York, Howe, and Prince of Wales up for GAN again. You'll see that I went though Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea and added the relevant material to Duke of York - you might want to consider looking through for the other two articles to see what you can add. It's essentially a must-have source for warships of the Second World War, since it usually has details others don't cover (as was the case with Duke of York), and especially since it's accessible on Google Books. If there's a page you need but can't see in GB, I have a hard copy (I think Sturmvogel does as well), so I can help you out if need be. Anyway, great work on the articles already, I'm glad to see you back around. Parsecboy (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Good idea to add Rohwer, i'll add him to the other articles in the coming days and thanks for the offer but I have a copy of Rohwer on me :) Thurgate (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and many thanks for taking on the GA review for the subject article. Though I've begun making necessary changes, I'll need a day or two to rewrite the lead. I greatly appreciate your feedback.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really, really slim article to be passed as GA: five paragraphs with a couple of internet hits: no books, no articles... Drmies (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for doing the GA review for the subject article. I thought your comments were excellent. Also, kudos to you for all the work you have done and are doing in reviewing articles for GA status.Sarnold17 (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KGV class GAR
You may not have noticed, but I've started the review of this article. It's incomplete, but I'll work more on it if you respond to my first round of comments. If there is no response in 7 days, I'll fail it for lack of response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.
If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012
There are currently 15,862 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 345 unreviewed articles. Out of 439 total nominations, 24 are on hold, 66 are under review, and 4 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article! Even just reviewing one will help!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Social sciences and society (80 articles), Sports and recreation (70 articles), Music (63 articles), Theatre, film and drama (52 articles), and History (41 articles). Please consider reviewing articles within these sections.
There are currently 13 articles up for reassessment at Good Article Reassessment. Please help out and go to WP:GAR and review an article! Remember that anyone can review articles that are listed under "Community Reassessment" even if another user has already listed their opinion...the more opinions, the better!
Member News
There are currently 222 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to all the new members that joined during the past 17 months! If you aren't yet part of WikiProject Good Articles and interested in joining WikiProject Good Articles, go here and add you name. Everyone is welcomed!
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!
If you haven't done so already, please remember to add your name to this list if you are still interested/active with this WikiProject. If you are no longer interested/active you don't need to add your name anywhere, you're name will be moved into a "inactive participant" list at the beginning of November. Inactive users will not receive future newsletters from this WikiProject via their talk page.
GA Task forces
There is currently not much going on at this time but there is a very large backlog. Until the next backlog elimination drive, please help reduce the number of nominations by reviewing articles and helping other reviewers that may need second opinions.
Thanks to everyone who committed some time to help reduce the nominations backlog during the June-July 2012 backlog elimination drive. Most barnstars have been given out but there are still a few left. Participants that haven't gotten a barnstar yet should get it soon.
Possible Fall/Winter 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive
A discussion is currently being held on the WikiProject's talk page on weather another eliminations drive should take place within the next few months as the last one proved to be extremely successful. Please take the time to go to the the talk page and include your opinion on if you would be interested in taking part in a Fall/Winter 2012 elimination drive.
Good Articles of the Month
Each month, 5 random good articles will be choose to be featured here as the good articles of the month.
Having references included in articles is one of the most important aspects to a good article, let alone Wikipedia! Without them, no one would ever know what is true and what is false and Wikipedia probably wouldn't be where it is today. So this month, I will talk about how to check for references, how reliable they are, and so on and so forth.
The first thing to do when reviewing an nominee is to do a quick scan of the article. One of the things to look for is if the article has references! If you don't see a list at the bottom of the article page, quick-fail it.[2] For newcomers, quick-failing is failing an article when you spot a problem before actually conducting a full review. If you do find a list of references (and in most cases you will) make sure to look through each and every one. If you want to save some time, use this tool as it will tell you if there are any problematic references in the article you are reviewing.
Next, check the reliability and type of the references/sources. In terms of the type of reference, check to see how many primary and/or secondary sources are included. Primary sources are the ones published by the subject of the article. For example, if the subject of the article has to do with the iPhone 4s and the source is published by Apple, it is considered a primary source. Secondary sources are those not published by the subject of the article (or in close relation to it). Newspapers are examples of secondary sources and considered one of the better types to include in the article (not saying primary sources are bad). If you find that most/all of the references are primary sources, notify the nominator about this issue(s) and place the article on hold once you have completed the review. Only in the event that a secondary source can't be found as a replacement, then the primary source can remain. If there is a good mix of primary and secondary sources, that is perfect and no references need to be changed.
Now, reliability. Forums are generally not considered reliable and some blog's may not be reliable either. Newspapers, most sources published by the subject, some blogs, etc. are considered reliable. If you don't know wether the source is reliable, ask for a second opinion. For more info about how to identify wether a reference is reliable or not, visit this article.
Finally, one of the more basic things to look for is that every statement in the article has at least one reference! The only case that a statement doesn't need a reference is when it is common sense that the statement is defiantly true and/or in the case where the statement can't be challenged, as per what Wikipedia says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."
From the Editor
After a long 18 month hiatus, the third volume of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter is here! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue of the newsletter here or on the editors talk page.
Also, Happy Halloween...in advance!!!
PLEASE READ: If you do not wish to receive future WikiProject Good Articles newsletter's on your talk page, please remove your self from this list. If you are viewing this newsletter from the WikiProject Good Articles page or on someone else's talk page and want to receive future newsletters on your talk page, please add your name to the list linked above.
^Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing.
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Second Call)
You are reciving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the first message sent out in September, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The current deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. A third and final message will be sent out during the last week of the clean-up before the deadline. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)
You are receiving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the past two messages sent out in September and October, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. This will be the last message sent out before the deadline which is in 2 days. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012
Good Article Nominations Request For Comment
A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here.
At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support.
If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread.
Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.
A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)
As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. GilderienChat|Contributions03:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.
At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:
This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.
Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.
More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.
I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!
Dear Thurgate, I think it might be good to edit the above to prevent the page appearing in its categories. ie it is listed in Categories: Battleship classes / King George V-class battleships (1939) / World War II battleships of the United Kingdom. What do you think? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited King George V-class battleship (1939), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive
Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!
TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.
If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.
At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.
As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!
Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!
As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:
For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.
For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).
The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.
WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.
Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.
Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.
