From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
However,....
|
Indon does not have faith anymore in Wikipedia. When he's actively online, it means he almost falls asleep and hits the monitor screen. Vandals and spammers are his caffeine drink, but not POV-users (oh, heaven forbids those creatures in Wikipedia). Okay, tafandria mandry tompoko! |
[edit] Talk Archived
— Indon (reply) — 14:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] One of the better edit summaries I have seen
(ZZAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP !!!!!!!!!!!) - jangan qwatir - it can always get worse :( SatuSuro 14:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Have you read my message above? :-) — Indon (reply) — 14:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes = but i think most of us lose faith daily - and then come back the next day :( SatuSuro 15:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
Indon, I am your biggest fan because you crack down vandalisers every day. Keep up the great work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenstatewarroirs (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Came across Statistics Indonesia and Badan Pusat Statistik which seem to be the same topic. Seems like a merge is needed? Cheers. Caniago 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good catch! I'll do the merge. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Indon. BTW, here's another ref for the Indonesia rich list [1]. (Caniago 11:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
- Thanks also Caniago. I've updated list of Indonesians by net worth from your source. — Indon (reply) — 12:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Looks great :-) I wonder why Suharto & family is not on the Forbes list? (Caniago 14:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
- IMO, the list is based on the net worth which is the total assets minus liabilities. I guess Suharto's wealth mainly consist of more liabilities than the asset itself. — Indon (reply) — 16:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well if the Time.com article in 1999 is to be believed he was worth US$15 billion. Whats happened to all that money since? I think these Forbes list are probably quite inaccurate, given its very difficult to know how much someone is worth without being their accountant. (Caniago 09:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC))
- Maybe it only surveyed among entrepreneurs and maybe if the calculation is the total assets then Suharto was listed. I don't know much about it. — Indon (reply) — 10:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hello Indon!
Hi Indon! I have a quick question: Are you sure Eleanor Roosevelt is FDR's fifth cousin, once removed? Just want to make sure it has the correct info on that article. So long -Goldenstatewarroirs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenstatewarroirs (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Indonesia
apaan sih WikiProject Indonesia (balas pake bahasa indonesia maklum baru sedikit bahasa inggris) Fajar adi buana 07:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandals
I am well aware of what vandalism is. Furthermore I don't recall insulting anyone, only reading the riot act so that they know to stop being disruptive. the UNOFFICIAL vandal policeBang Bang 10:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Going soft on vandals only makes them think that it's acceptable. We need to throw the book at them when they pop up to stop them from continuing their disgraceful acts, rather than sitting around cuddling them as they plot against us the UNOFFICIAL vandal policeBang Bang 10:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- The only people I'll have trouble with are those vandals who insist on trying to wreck wikipedia. Hopefully we can work together to purge them once and for all the UNOFFICIAL vandal policeBang Bang 10:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FL Main page proposal
You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination this year. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1, 2007, voting starting December 1, 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1, 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual main page will resemble either an excerpted list format or an abbreviated text format. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Portuguese overseas empire
Hi,Indon
I think you did wrong by removing the template. I think it gives an important historic context. That's not excessive, it´s complet. And doesn't seems to me that anyone will think that the islands belong to Portugal. Did you really got that impression? Have you checked on how many articles of sovereign countries that template and category are? And sometimes with even more related categories and templates. For example, i don't think anyone will stay with the impression that Brazil is still part of Portugal. OK... Be cool.
--Bluedenim 22:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] H. S. Dillon
Hi Indon,
Please see Talk:Harbrinderjit_Singh_Dillon#Should_be_H._S._Dillon - re naming conventions. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy talk 14:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Hi Indon. Thanks very much for the Barnstar. The problem with Wikipedia is that the more you do, the more gaps you find. Next on the list: Sjam, Dipa Nusantara Aidit (expansion of) and possibly Untung, Latief and M. H. Lukman (expansion). The Communist Party of Indonesia article really needs work too, but it's a question of time. At least I've found a use for all those books I've been collecting. By the way, well done for spotting and linking the Pierre Tendean article. Regards Davidelit 09:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism at Iris flower data set. Daggerbox 17:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi FayssalF, I noticed you'd included Sukarno in the WP:MILHIST project. I'm not against the project, but do you think he is considered as a military personnel? Through his biography, he was an engineer turned into politicians and he never commanded military personnels in action, although as the head of a state he is officially the commander-in-chief of Indonesian army. But if the latter is the case then all Indonesian presidents must be included in the project. Just a thought. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 07:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Indon. It is probably because i am more an inclusive user. I now read again the article in depth and believe that you are correct. I am reverting it back. Thanks for your note. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Battmail
I posted a link on the Cuba page to a documentary our production team did on Cuba. This was not spam as it was not an advertisment for us, but a legitimate link to useful information on Cuba. Perhapes before U dick with People u should actually see what U R doing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Battmail (talk • contribs)
[edit] Redirect
I have no idea what you've been trying to do to Talk:List of regencies and cities of Indonesia, but whatever it is, it isn't working. Redirecting the page to itself just creates an unusable link. And as long as the corresponding article exists at its current title, it makes no sense to redirect the talk page anywhere else. --Russ (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] article Parameswara
>>> "Sejarah Melayu alleges that Parameswara was a descendant of Alexander the Great of Macedonia.[citation needed]" <<<
Hi Indon, I don't understand why the need of citation when the source mentioned is a book (written in 17th century) called Sejarah Melayu? Detonqutei 08:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Detonqutei (talk • contribs) 08:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Indon. The bit about him being persuaded not to run for governor came from one of the two Kompas articles. I'll add an inline reference when I get the time, but I'm a bit rushed this week. I added the info about being educated at Catholic schools as I believe it provides extra background, and is significant as he is one of Canisius College's most famous alumni and because he played the religious card during the election campaign. Regards Davidelit 09:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again. I accept your point about the "Catholic" bit, although it was Kompas that mentioned it ("Untuk pendidikan formal, Fauzi justru mendapat pendidikan formal di sekolah Katolik" - Kompas 2 Aug 07 hal 33), and your comparison with pesantren is a well-made argument. People of all faiths are sent to Canisius for the quality of the education (I know a Hindu who goes there!), as they are for the (Catholic) Atma Jaya Uni, and it was not my intention to introduce a loaded statement. Incidentally, I have added citations for the other statements you highlighted. Regards Davidelit 15:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Silat: Spamming
The links leading to the videos were not added by me at first but I do agree to their addition. To me, it is a good way for users to see the martial arts in question. Don't you agree that this is a good way for them to get to know it better? Iijam 08:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you mean... But if I own and uploaded the video can I link it? Or should I just upload it into Wikipedia? I'm afraid if I do this, readers my claim I am biased if my video only reflects a certain situation from one angle. Iijam 09:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I haven't.. Am currently going through Wikipedia policies.. I guess I have a few mistakes in the past regarding editing articles, linking and all that. Will try to be more careful in the future. There is still more I can learn. I there is anything else, please advice. Thank you. Iijam 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Indon, after looking at the article on Silat I would dearly love to help in the copy-editing of the article. Since it has been dead in the water for a while, I'd like to pitch in. However, it appears to be a rather thorny issue. My apologies, but please revert or alert me if I do anything stupid. Last thing this subject needs is another edit war. Thanks for your time. Sunshard (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 5 entries on mentoring
Hello,
I work with the organization called MENTOR/The National Mentoring Partnership. We promote all kinds of mentoring activities all over the country.
I am currently updating three wikipedia articles: Mentor, Youth Mentoring, Mentorship, and I also added two more entries on MENTOR/The National Mentoring Partnership and Nationl Mentoring Month.
Please keep my edits and the two new entries - we are tring to spread the word and advocate for mentoring of high-risk youth. There is an article for the Big Brother, Big Sister organization, and we feel that it would help us increase the visibility of our efferts by having profiles on the wikipedia.
Please? It's a for a really good cause. We also have a public service announcement created by HBO that we'll be placing shortly on YouTube and such.
Thank you.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter, please email me at MAgeeva@mentoring.org
Masha Ageeva —Preceding unsigned comment added by MashaAgeeva (talk • contribs) 14:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for the note and update
Thanks for the update on the "colloborationist" category and the possible sock puppetry. News to me and I appreciate the news. I think there's room to discuss Indonesians who collaborated with the Dutch and/or the Japanese (and/or the Americans for that matter!), but I don't think a reductionist category is the place for it. Cheers, Smilo Don 16:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tina Hobley
Hi, thanks for pointing out that I didn't cite my source for announcing that Tina is having a baby. The thing is I have read the guidance page but still don't know how to do it. I'm her husband, so the source is reliable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver Wheeler (talk • contribs) 15:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yahoo! Answers Vandals Permitted to Bury Well Documented Criticism
I do need your help. Now that I have your attention, I need your help reverting or rather changing the Yahoo! Answers page so that is shows criticisms as should be done. I would also like you to ban novangelis who was pointed out as not being eligible to edit that article being that he is a known member of Yahoo! Answers who was pointed out on that very page as showing heavy bias towards Christians. Despite me pointing that out, loeth, that biased member, sided with him! Here is the link to the edit in mind, no it isn't perfect grammar as it runs on and so on, but IT DOES CITE SOURCES. Now how can anyone claim I need to cite sources and that I am biased when I AM CITING THE SOURCES? Please do explain that!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahoo%21_Answers&oldid=167631550
Mzarius and others say there is "weasel wording" and bias yet what is it? There mere say so? How is it novangelis, cited as an abusive user, who acknoweldged on Yahoo! Answers that he is the one who was tampering with the page, and gloating about the whole wikipedia siding with him, permitted to edit that page? That's fair? That's reasonable? Why does wikipedia itself on its entry have a criticism section, yet Yahoo! Answers have NONE at all? Why were my edits on the talk page reverted over and over and why after I reported this harassment to the page protection section was it not addressed promptly and the vandals banned? Instead I WAS BANNED. Disgusting! So, it's damned if I do cite sources, damned if I don't cite sources, right? Sickening!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiaseduser (talk • contribs) 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Indorayon
Hi INdon. Yes I studied Indorayon as a case study for my uni degree although I no longer have the books. I felt it more appropriate for a seperate article. The condensing you;ve done now is excellent and is more suitable I think. Thanks anyway and keep up the good work. I'm astonished such a major company and businessman took so long to get onto wikiepdia -an excellent start. You'll be pleased to know I have done some work on List of Indonesian films ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 12:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thannks yes I haven't got so far as adding most of the titles yet but it would be a great help if you have seen some of the movies and are able to give a decent plot section in the articles. I'm afraid the online info on the films content is not there. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ "Talk"? 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] banten
wah... editan gue bener2 ditolak... padahal dulu nggak sesusah ini ngedit Wiki... oke deh gue ngaku nyerah ke Jimbo Wales... --kandar 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, things change man. — Indon (reply) — 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My Editing
Dear Indon,
Hi, My name is Hito, I tried to edit the Indonesia page with the new facts, yet, you seem try to always delete it. I wonder why?
In fact the informations used in Indonesia page at Wikipedia is not valid anymore. A lot of the data is from 2003 to 2006. Moreover, the expositions used has failed represent the current condition of Indonesia. Indonesia has created a great progress recent years.
please explain to me How can I edit the information without put my statement on the cited statement? and how to make cited works on Wikipedia. Because my new edit is valid and I have the cited works for it. So, please don't delete my revision again. I will never give up and keep trying put my revision!!!! because I have a valid cited works. I want to give people correct informations about Indonesia.
Hito —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horohito (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] about H. Floresiensis arrival at Flores
Eteruel 10:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC) eteruel
Hi Indon! Thanks for the correction to my editing of H. Floresiensis, I apologize for the inconvenience, I'm a new user.
I'm not in the position to publish about it, I am just "surprised" that a serious attempt to explain how a H. Erecturs arrived at Flores about a million years ago dismisses the possibility of doing so by swiming, which would be in perfect accordance to the aquatic ape hypothesis. Swiming seems to be accepted as the means of locomotion elephants used for the same purpose, perhaps because no one dares to speculate they were so intelligent to have a navigation technology...
Once arrived at the island, those H. erectus would have evolved, and in particular would have "suffered" dwarfism, the same as the elephants.
Perhaps I should use the "Talk" section for expressing these ideas?
Thank you in advance!
[edit] Featured List of the Day Experiment
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alert!!
I have been checking the European countries' articles such as France, Germany, and Russia. I have found out that User:Blain123, has vandalized, or changed the content of the article on purpose, and should be banned. As an administrator, User:Indon, you should bann this person from editing any articles. It is for the good of Wikipedia.
As many users say: "LONG LIVE WIKIPEDIA!!"
Cheers and have a great day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps89 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I just wondered if you would consider letting me nominate you for adminship, as you seem experienced enough. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Indon is a poor choice for admin. I will oppose strongly any such rfa. This is simply because if he were to become an admin, it would take him away from his magnificent quality expansions of Indonesia-related articles. Seriously though, if he did go for admin I would most probably but reluctantly strongly support such an rfa. :-) --Merbabu (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha, thanks for your compliment, Merbabu. I second to Merbabu, but not because of his reason, of course. :-) First, I don't like wiki-drama, though I enjoy reading it ;P, and second, I can't commit myself to wiki. I've abandoned wiki for such a long time due to my real-life situation. As for Indonesia-related articles, we still have Merbabu, SatuSuro and Caniago to keep the project alive. Anyway, thanks a lot for your offer, Epbr123, but I've to refuse it. — Indon (reply) — 09:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sumatran Rhino
Hi Indon, I remember the very helpful review you gave of Javan Rhinoceros. I wondered if you'd be interested in taking a look over Sumatran Rhinoceros which I just finished doing some heavy work on. In many ways they're similar to the Javan Rhino, but in many ways quite different. I've been working on it for so long that I need a fresh pair of eyes to point out spots where the article might still be weak. Thanks for your help! --JayHenry (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] the true history of samarinda
dear wikipedia,
tahniah atas usaha anda dalam memartabatkan bangsa indonesia.Segala usaha anda saya letakkan sebagai cerita kelas pertama. Tapi terdapat beberapa permasaalahan yang timbul. Benarkan saya untuk bercerita mengenai permasalahan tersebut. Pertama mengenai sejarah terjadinya samarinda.
Assalamualaikum,
Nama saya Indra bin Abd. Wahab. saya berumur 42 tahun. Saya adalah anak yang tertua daripada Hj. Abd Wahab. Saya berbangsa bugis berketurunan wajo, Sulawesi. Sebenarnya bapa saya dan adik beradiknya berasal dari samarinda tapi kini telah menjadi rakyat malaysia dan menetap di sabah. Keluarga saya berasal dari keturunan Lakandu @ wakandu, pemilik tanah di samarinda seberang yang juga merupakan anak kepada Lauda/Dauda @ Lamaddu kelleng yang pernah menjadi puang ri magalatung @ Yang di pertuan Agung wajo yang juga merupakan pemerintah tertinggi bangsa wajo pada tahun 1725. Apa yang menjadi kemuskilan saya ialah tentang kewujudan samarinda. Apa yang saya lihat di kebanyakkan buku mahupun internet samada di malaysia mahupun di samarinda kebanykakannya menceritakan mengenai pembukaan samarinda yang di buka oleh orang yang bernama Lamohang Daeng Mangkona. Namun dari hasil penyelidikan saya dan sepupu saya mendapati bahawa samarinda telah di buka pada 1730-an oleh lamohang Daeng Mangkona namun pembukaan tersebut adalah atas arahan Pung Ri Magalatung pada masa itu iaitu Lamaddu Kelleng. Dan dari hasil penyelidikan berserta bukti yang di perolehi dari pemegang bertauliah lontara wajo, kami mendapati bahawa raja wajo yang bernama lamohang Daeng Mangkona ini tidak terdapat dalam lontara wajo,berkemungkinan nama ini adalah nama samaran atau nama yang ditambah sebab orang yang bernama Daeng Mangkona ini adalah wujud.Perkara kedua adalah mengenai Pua Ado 1 yang disalah tafsir oleh penulis kepada Lamohang Daeng Mangkona. Sebenarnya Pua Ado 1 dan Lamohang Daeng Mangkona atau Daeng Mangkona adalah orang yang berbeza.Malah tahun kehidupan mereka adalah berbeza. Pua Ado 1 mengikut bukti yang terdapat di wajo adalah bersal dari nama ssalah seorang raja wajo iaitu Latenri Pakado Tonampe yang mana ado di ambil dari pakado. Beliau yang mula memerintah dari tahun 1660 dan ketika membewa suku kaum wajo berhijrah ke samarinda selepas Perjanjian Bungaya manakala Lamohang Daeng Mangkona atau Daeng mangkona pula mula hidup ketika era lamaddu kelleng iaitu cucu kepada Latenri Pakado Tonampe. Perkara Ketiga ialah mengenai Tanah permakaman yang terdapat di Kg. Baka samarinda seberang,yang mana nama pemilik makam tersebut telah diubah kepada nama Lamohang Daeng Mnagkona atau Daeng Mangkona sedangkan pemilik sebenar makam tersebut adalah moyang saya dan makam Lamohang Daeng mangkona atau Daeng Mangkona berkubur di Johor semenanjung malaysia. Berikut adalah merupakan silsilah ringkas keturunan saya iaitu bermula : Latenri pakado tonampe - Lasangkuru Patau Mulajaji - Lamaddu Kelleng @ dauda - Lakandu dan Seterusnya arwah datuk/kayi saya iaitu Hj. Yusupu Daeng Ma Sengaj. Anak - anak beliau adalah seperti berikut :
1.Saipol Ahyar Bin Hj. Yusupu 2.Fatimahsyam Bte Hj. Yusupu 3.Saipol Anwar Bin Hj.Yusupu 4.Hj. Abd.Wahab Bin Hj.Yusupu (bapa saya). 5.Ahmad bin Hj. Yusupu 6.Halimatus Saadiah Bte. Hj. Yusupu 7.Yusam Bin Hj. yusupu 8.Abdullah Sani Bin Hj. Yusupu 9.Zamrud bte Hj.Yusupu. 10.Haniah Bte Hj. Yusupu.
Untuk pengetahuan penulis atau pemilik laman ini diharap dapat menghubungi saya seandainya ingin mendapatkan maklumat mengenai keturunan kami. H/P 0195839303 atau H/P 0135822431. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.34.32 (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter |
|
- Project News
- There are now 3,301 Good Articles listed at WP:GA. With 1,789 current featured articles, that brings the total of good and featured articles to 5,090!
- The most recently promoted articles are: Hurricane Daniel (2006), Tarbosaurus, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Wicca, Seth MacFarlane, Stanley Internment Camp, Hurricane Karen (2007), Interstate 155 (Illinois), Tropical Storm Ingrid (2007), Brian Sings and Swings, Winston Churchill, Mzoli's, John Kefalas, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
- The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
-
- The oldest unreviewed articles are: Attachment disorder, Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, Byzantium under the Angeloi, Wowowee, Tyrone Wheatley, Mina (singer), Jon Burge, Mercury Hayes, William Lowndes Yancey, and Toni Preckwinkle.
-
- The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
-
- The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review.
-
- If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
- Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
- Member News
There are now 166 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 7 new members that joined during the month of December:
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!
|
- GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
- GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
- Did You Know,...
- ... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
- ... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
- ... that there is a bot (StatisticianBot) that gives a daily report on GAN?
- ... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
- ... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
- From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
- Contributors to this Issue
|
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
|
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] Your copyedit request
On July 24, 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Borobudur. Due to a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we aplogize. Since your request, this article has been subject to significant editing, and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. SlackerMom (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Krisdayanti
Hello, :p, apa kabar Sukanto Tanotonya? Mimihitam (talk) 10:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter |
|
- Project News
- 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 oldest unreviewed articles are: Johan Derksen, Trafford, J. Michael Bailey, Greg Skrepenak, Paleolithic-style diet, Alan Dershowitz, Natalee Holloway, Slovenian presidential election, 2007, San Francisco Municipal Railway, and Marcela Agoncillo.
-
- 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).
-
- The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 8 articles up for re-review.
-
- 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:
- Member News
There are now 176 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 15 new members that joined during the month of January:
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:
- Passing – it meets all six of the good article criteria; add it to WP:GA and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{GA}} to the article's talk page.
- 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 major neutrality issues.
- 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.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
- Contributors to this Issue
|
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
|
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selamat, do you have any idea of why is your userpage being vandalised so many times? You aren't an admin, are you? Btw sorry for insulting you, why not you stop using the name "Indon", it's insulting for Indonesians now, and this name is blocked in the Malay Wikipedia... --אדםוןד ואודס (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter |
|
- Project News
- 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 oldest unreviewed articles are: Ian Browne (cyclist), Tony Marchant, Reginald fitz Jocelin, Annie Russell, Brodie Croyle, and Jimmy Moore.
-
- 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).
-
- The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 13 articles up for re-review.
-
- 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:
- Member News
There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February:
- Did You Know...
- ...that the shortest timespan for a GA to be listed and subsequently delisted is 8 minutes? (The article is Project Chanology and currently listed on WP:GAR)
- ...that the current nominations system started on March 10, 2006?
- ...that in May 2006, number of GA surpassed number of FA? 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!
|
- One GA Requirement - The Lead Section
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 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.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
- Contributors to this Issue
|
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
|
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Indon How are you?? apa ini anda?? soalnya orang ms lagi pada ngerencanain ngehapus halaman Indon. Bukan buat ganti nama :) Fajar adi buana (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter |
|
- Project News
- There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
- The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
-
- The oldest unreviewed articles are: A4232 road, New York State Route 63, Great American Boycott, First Great Western, Duck Soup, Sanja Matsuri, Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), Prospect Mountain Veterans Memorial Highway, Aliens (film), and Roanoke Regional Airport.
-
- The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
-
- The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 12 articles up for re-review.
- GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
- Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for March, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen monoxide hails from Brisbane in Queensland, Australia, and has been editing Wikipedia since April 6, 2007. He has contributed to 8 Featured articles and is an avid reviewer and contributor to the Good articles program. Other reviewers should check out his Noob's Guide to GA Reviewing. Congratulations to Dihydrogen monoxide!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of March include:
- Member News
There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
|
- To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
- From the Editors
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
- Contributors to this Issue
|
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
|
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter |
|
- Project News
- There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
- The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
-
- The oldest unreviewed articles are: Fighting Tommy Riley, Brock Lesnar, Cluj-Napoca, Wolf's Rain, Brian Kendrick, and North and South (TV serial).
-
- The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
-
- The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 17 articles up for re-review.
- GAN Reviewer of the Month
Noble Story (talk · contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk · contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
- Member News
There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April:
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!
|
- GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Uncategorized good articles is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
- GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
- Did You Know...
- ...that there are slightly less than twice as many Good Articles as Featured Articles?
- ...that the total number of Good Articles and Featured Articles combined is 6,085?
- ...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
- From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
- Contributors to this Issue
- Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor)
- OhanaUnited (Article, GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent)
|
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
|
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] WP:LOTD
List of volcanoes in Indonesia was selected as a WP:LOTD for one day in June and will be the LOTD during the month. Let me know before May 23rd if you have any date preferences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter |
|
- Project News
- There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
- The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
-
- The oldest unreviewed articles are: Choctaw, One Night Stand (2007), Justin Tuck, Tristan Tzara, The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode), Impalement arts, Backlash (2007), Adelaide Rams, and Sam Cowan.
-
- The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
-
- The backlog at Good Article Reassessment currently stands at 4 articles up for re-review.
- GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
- GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk · contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk · contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
Also, with 19 nominations, Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) is the nominator of the month, followed by TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) with 8 nominations submitted.
- Member News
There are now 216 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 6 new members that joined during the month of April:
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!
|
- New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
- Did You Know...
- ... that there are slightly more than twice as many Good Articles (4,266) as there are Featured Articles?
- ... that Giggy has some really neat and useful tools to assist reviewers in conducting their reviews?
- ... that there are ten experienced reviewers listed on the GA mentors list that can offer assistance or a second opinion in reviewing articles?
- From the Editors
A GA working party has initiated discussion on ways to improve the Good Article project and processes. The goal of the working party is to come up with suggestions for improvement based on recent issues and concerns raised in the past, primarily in the wake of the Great Green Dot Debate of May 2008. The discussion can be found here. Members of the working party include: Dank55 (talk · contribs), Derek.cashman (talk · contribs), EyeSerene (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs), Gwinva (talk · contribs), LaraLove (talk · contribs), Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs), and OhanaUnited (talk · contribs).
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
- Contributors to this Issue
|
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
|
WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)