User talk:Jackturner3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Lutheran Calendar of Saints 2 Wikiproject Lutheranism: Seminaries 3 Leonhard Euler Assessment 4 O Sacred Head 5 Will the real LCMS please stand up? 6 Re:Lutheran calendar 7 DYK 8 DYK 9 Barnstars 10 GA nomination 11 Liturgical calendar (Lutheran) 12 Bishop Thomas 13 Image:Pastordavid.jpg 14 Re: Featured List status for Calendar of Saints (Lutheran) 15 Did you know 16 Did you know 17 Lutheran calendar 18 Re: Your Question about Martin Luther College, New Ulm, Minnesota 19 Seung Sahn 20 Your GA review of Elias Zoghby 21 Jesus in Islam 22 Dennis Genpo Merzel 23 FA 24 Roman Catholic Church 25 FAC and an offer 26 Barnstar 27 Roman Catholic Church 28 GA review of Thomas of Bayeux 29 3 holds 30 Please take a look and let me know what you think 31 WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter 32 Natalee Holloway 33 RE:3 GA Nominees 34 Blessed Ash Wednesday 35 GA in articlehistory 36 Roman Catholic Church Thank You 37 Thelema 38 Thurstan 39 Allah 40 Northern Celestial Masters GA review 41 GA Review 42 Anarchism in Cuba 43 Thanks 44 CrimethInc. 45 Battle of Kleidion 46 National symbols of Pakistan review 47 WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter 48 Western Rite Orthodoxy 49 GAR:Allah 50 A photo for you 51 Towson United Methodist Church 52 April GA Newsletter 53 WikiProject Christianity 54 WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter 55 Western-Rite Orthodoxy

[edit] Lutheran Calendar of Saints

Your comment about creating separate pages for other Lutheran denominations makes sense, particularly considering that there is an existing precedent for separate liturgical calendars for the various churches of the Anglican communion. As I find information on the various other claendars that is available in English, which is unfortunately about the only language I can read well, I will try to create them as separate pages, except possibly in such cases as the claendars might have only minimal data. John Carter 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Lutheranism: Seminaries

Jack, any particular reason that you rated LTSG as high importance and LTSP as mid-importance? I would think that all ELCA seminaries would have the same priority. Also, I'm not so sure about the ratings involved; level of detail is much greater for LTSP than LTSG, which seems more like a stub. Anyway, shoot me a message and help me figure out the importance ratings that you put in. --Apostlemep12 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate the explanation--that's the only logical justification I could have seen, but I wanted to make sure it was clear. You have any ideas about how we can motivate folks to improve these pages? I can do more work on LTSG and LTSP but don't have much background to work on the others.--Apostlemep12 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leonhard Euler Assessment

Why did you revert my assessment of Leonhard Euler? I can see no significant contribution he has made to Lutheranism, so why Euler is certainly significant to mathematics, I fail to understand how he is of any specific significance to Lutheranism. An expliantion of your reasoning would be most appreciated. jackturner3 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry. I accidentally pressed the [rollback] button and thought I had stopped the browser before the revert went through. I've reverted myself back to your version. —METS501 (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] O Sacred Head

It's Lutheran in the sense that it was written by one of the greatest Lutheran hymnists -- Paul Gerhardt, is in every Lutheran hymnal I know of (hymnologists call is a part of the liederkern; kind of a canon of hymns that make a hymnal Lutheran), it is popular in my circles and is also popular beyond Lutheranism, as you have said. It is as much Lutheran as Luther's less famed hymns (think of "From Heaven Above," "Come Holy Ghost, God and Lord," etc.) This hymn has more of an association with Lutheranism than some of the politians we've listed in the project. That's why I tagged it in the first place. Oh, if it matters at all, this hymn is popular in my circles. It wouldn't seem lent if it wasn't sung here. Does that help?--CTSWyneken^(talk) 18:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, although I'm knee deep in a few articles at the moment. The point behind the flag, at least in my book, is that it calls the attention of our folk to it and thus to get the Lutheran aspect enhanced by a few hands. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 19:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been hovering between mid and low. It is, after all, only a hymn, but on the other hand, it is an important one. Whatever you settle on is fine with me. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 20:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Will the real LCMS please stand up?

Just kidding :). In response to your comment here, I would like to point out that LCMS is also the preferred abbreviation for the Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore, which explains why it is used extensively in the article. Cheers. - Bob K 19:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Lutheran calendar

I can hardly tell if the article is factually accurate without in-line citations. It's definite quick-fail. Alientraveller 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would think the criteria would need to be changed. Wikipedia is a lot stricter on attribution than it was two years ago. Alientraveller 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 25 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Western Rite Orthodoxy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 28 April 2007, a fact from the article Lutheran Church of China, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

Please stop by and give your opinion on the two proposed barnstars for WikiProject Lutheranism. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

Hi Jackturner3,

First of all, I would like to thank you for your contributions to the wikipedia. Secondly, I have decided to rescue myself from reviewing this article as it seems that our understanding of the policies are very different. So, I don't wish to ruin your hard work. Here is what I am going to do: I will make an archive of our discussion on the talk page leaving one last comment in response to your recent comments. You can then respond to it and we can archive that conversation. Then I will add back your nomination. How is that? I hope everything is going well with you in real life. Cheers, --Aminz 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liturgical calendar (Lutheran)

On 19 June 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Liturgical calendar (Lutheran), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop Thomas

Thank you very much for spending time to review Bishop Thomas for GA. --Drieakko 13:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pastordavid.jpg

Jack, unless I am mistaken, that was taken during the Great Fifty Days of Easter. I know that it is not the most illustrative photo, but perhaps it can be helpful for you. Pastordavid 15:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Featured List status for Calendar of Saints (Lutheran)

While you are correct about that particular guideline, I looked it over, and no comments had been posted in four days at the time I failed it, thus I did not believe that "things were being actively addressed" since the only oppose had already been dealt with, and the article simply needed more support to gain FL status, but then that wouldn't have stopped anyone from adding in another oppose later on. Anyway, another of the guidelines states that it should be delisted after 10 days, though as you said that is not the case if issues are being actively addressed. As I said, I did not see this to be the case, so I delisted it. If you believe all of the issues from the previous FLC have been dealt with, you are free to renominate it.--十八 04:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so I see. I'm sorry for what's happened, but I don't think that it should be relisted without renominating it due to the procedure process. If you relist it, I'll even provide a support vote for you, given that the tables are inserted as I agree with their inclusion.--十八 13:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to reinform me; I keep my eye on WP:FLC so that pages that are obvious fails or promotions can be failed and promoted when their time comes, so when you renominate it, I'll see it.--十八 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

On 2 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Orthodox Church of France, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 15:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know

On 4 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Julius Joseph Overbeck, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 01:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lutheran calendar

I guess I'm unclear as to what the "point" is. If it's to compare the ELCIC et. al. calendar to its Anglican counterparts, then surely its worth noting that it stands in contrast to the ACoC one. If that's not worth noting, then neither is ECUSA. And next time, skip the "vandalism" bit. Carolynparrishfan 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still fuzzy as to why the Anglican situation in one of the countries where ELW is used is relevant, and not the other, but unlike you, I'm willing to Assume Good Faith for the time being. Carolynparrishfan 18:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I get the Australia thing, of course. But the Canadian BAS is basically a clone of the 1979 US BCP. The model was very closely followed. It's all the same family of books (as is, arguably, the Australian book). It just gives more context.

Vandalism, by definition, is something that is committed in bad faith. It's not a violation of the policy for me to point out that you, in objective fact, accused me of bad faith. My interests with regards to contributing the encyclopaedia are the same as yours, and to read a "hostile" tone into my edit summary (a text-based medium) is grossly unfair. Carolynparrishfan 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You "infer hostility", I "assume bad faith". How silly of me to think otherwise.

I wash my hands of this matter. I still don't think you appreciate how you're contributing to the broader trend of shunting aside the Canadian perspective, but I have more to accomplish in my edits than managing the melodramatics of one article. Carolynparrishfan 00:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we got off on the wrong foot here. I'm really not trying to insult you here. Am I hypervigilant about anti-Canadian bias? Probably, with some justification. Nowhere did I accuse you of maliciously (in bad faith) contributing to such a bias. Indeed, I went of my way to state that you were likely unaware of the possible effect the article as it stood might have. I also happen to agree with you that no bias was committed here (you're that persuasive ;)

The edit summary wasn't meant to be hostile, and while I can see how it can be read that way, assuming good faith asks us to go with other interpretations when reasonably possible. By pointing out a perceived breach, I don't think I'm in contravention of the policy. I retract the word "fine", if it has inexorable hostile connotations for you. Personally, I can conceive of about 8 different tones with which it could be said, from agreement or resignation, to sarcasm, exasperation, and hostility.

Finally, I'll be perfectly happy if the article says something like "The ECUSA kalendar, on which the LBW kalendar was broadly based..." As it was written, the Canadian situation may not have been relevant, but there was no indication of why the US Episcopal one was either. So you can see why, not knowing the link, it would be reasonable of me to conclude that the ACoC situation was just as relevant in what appeared to be simply an aside on Anglican practices. Carolynparrishfan 15:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your Question about Martin Luther College, New Ulm, Minnesota

My name is the Rev. David G. Peters. I'm a WELS pastor in Union Grove, Wisconsin (Trinity Luth. Church), having been graduated from Martin Luther Academy (1976), Northwestern College (B.A., 1982), and Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary (M.Div., 1987; S.T.M., 1999). I'm also a Ph.D.(a.b.d.) in Patristics & Reformation Studies at Marquette University.

Martin Luther Academy was the preparatory department of Dr. Martin Luther College in New Ulm, MN. Although the college only trained Lutheran school teachers (awarding only the B.S.Ed. degree), the prep department had three programs from which all students had to choose: teacher's course, pastor's course, or general education course. MLA was moved off of the DMLC campus after the 1978-79 school year when it was relocated to the former Jesuit high school (Campion) in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, where it was renamed Martin Luther Preparatory School. In 1995 MLPS was amalgamated with Northwestern Preparatory School on the campus it shared for 130 years with Northwestern College in Watertown, Wisc. The name of the merged prep schools is Luther Preparatory School. Simultaneously, NWC was moved up to New Ulm and amalgamated with DMLC.

The sole purposes of all these schools has for many, many decades been to train pastors, teachers, missionaries and staff ministers for the congregations and schools of the WELS. The selective liberal arts curriculum at Northwestern College (awarding only the B.A. degree) provided a well rounded pre-theological training focused on the study of foreign languages (Greek, Latin, Hebrew, German were all required; Spanish was a recently added elective). The balance of NWC's curriculum emphasized American and world history, English literature and composition, philosophy, psychology, music, lab sciences, and religious studies. Over 95% of NWC graduates matriculated at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary for theological and pastoral training.

Any WELS pastor can verify the accuracy of what I've written. The best book on the history of NWC is Holding the Course by Carlton Toppe (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publ. House).

You may contact me at Pastor@TrinityUG.org or 262-878-4156. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.53.125 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seung Sahn

Thank you for reviewing the article Seung Sahn, it is much appreciated. I've reworked much of the initial biography, and rearranged the layout of the criticisms section. Please let me know what else will need to be done to get the article GA status. Thank you. (Mind meal (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Your GA review of Elias Zoghby

Hi, Jack, thanks for reviewing the article on Elias Zoghby. Your review comments explain why the article fails criterion 3a. However, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why you believe the article fails criteria 1a (prose), 2a (references) and 3b (focus). It would help if you provide brief explanations for each, especially for 1a and 2a. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up comments and for re-evaluation of criterion 2. I'm going to expand the article and then re-submit it to GA Nominations. There's a new book which was just published on Zoghby which will help. Meanwhile, I can address issues such as the image caption. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus in Islam

Hi Jack, thanks for your review of Jesus in Islam. I've left some comments on the talk page. Regards, ITAQALLAH 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I've made the changes you suggested. ITAQALLAH 18:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack. Are there any other changes that you'd recommend be implemented? Regards, ITAQALLAH 15:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. ITAQALLAH 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jack, just to remind you... it's ~ 7 days since you put the article on hold. ITAQALLAH 15:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I shortened the lead down to one paragraph and inserted an image.[1] ITAQALLAH 15:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) ITAQALLAH 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Genpo Merzel

Thanks for the review of Dennis Genpo Merzel. One small thing: I'm not sure what you mean about the copyright status of the photos in the articles; they are both licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 - I obtained them from Flickr under said license from musician Ottmar Liebert. Thanks again. (Mind meal (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] FA

I'm not quite ready to support yet, but thanks for reminding me, I'd forgotten I'd commented. For someone who knows nothing about the topic, it reads well, and it's not far off. However I picked up a couple of typos ([ instead of [[ on two wikilinks, one of which proper needs redirecting still), so a final copyedit would be good. I also feel that the web references have not been fixed per the other comment. Also (not an issue this) personally I think that {{reflist|2}} looks better for notes than {{reflist}}. I'm away for a couple of days, I'll look again when I return. ~~~~

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Thank you for your time spent reviewing this GA nomination. I think your GA to do list is very good and gives me excellent guidelines to follow to help bring the article up hopefully to FA status eventually. I am going to address your concerns as my time allows and I hope that you will once again in the future come back to review the page when it gets renominated for GA. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to elaborate a little to help me address the fail on GA criteria #3. I am not sure what to change since you didn't leave a comment there. Could you please leave a comment to provide guidance for us on the talk page under criteria number 3? Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC and an offer

I was surprised to see the FAC for Liturgical calendar (Lutheran) close already - I made some organizational suggestions that I would be glad to discuss if you think it would help. I have been the (near) single author on three FAs - it is a lot of work and I can sympathize. Anyway, let me know if/when you want more feedback, and sorry about the FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would be glad to look at intermediate revisions too (not just the "final" version) if you think that would help. I looked for more images on Flickr (nothing much) and Commons (have you seen this Image:Rok liturgiczny - Liturgical year.jpg? - I know Lutherans do not use "Ordinary Time" but something similar might be helpful). As for the bot, it closes FACs based on the decision of Raul654 or one of his deputies (and by the way "FAR" is for reviewing articles that are already featured but may no longer meet the FA criteria). My guess is that with no supports, two opposes and lots of suggestions for improvement, they pulled the trigger sooner rather than later. Again, let me know how I can help and hang in there, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Glad to help (and sorry to be slow in replying). Sometimes a break from an article gives a fresh sense of perspective. I also would try looking at what others have written on the topic for ideas on organization, etc. Part of the idea I had came from looking at the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions section Calendars (Christian). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For all your hard work on articles and for helping out with many Good Article reviews, even after bad news. Given with respect and admiration, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Hi again. Sorry to bother you but I am taking a look at the Church History section in order to rewrite it per your comments on our GA fail. I am not sure what you are looking for and I just want a little more guidance on what needs to be changed here before I go ahead. I would like to know if you think the first section of the Church History part is OK. It looks to me like a brief overview of the Early Church which is how I was going to approach this. If there are any sections of Church History that are OK with you, please let me know so I don't mess them up with a rewrite. Thanks for your time and help. NancyHeise (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OK after bothering you, I can see what is wrong here. You're right, there are some very important church issues missing from this history. I can also see some things that are not really important enough to be included in a brief overview and should be eliminated. I will be working on this over the next week and invite you to come see the page and give me some criticisms if you think I am going about it all wrong. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review of Thomas of Bayeux

Thanks for reviewing it! I have tried to address your concerns with the lede length and the sentence structures, but I'll confess to having stared at the article so much that any spelling and grammatical errors just don't show up. You know how it goes, you look at something too much and it looks right, even if it isn't. Might I beg a pointer to the ones you saw? thanks! Ealdgyth | Talk 16:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me finish up what I'm working on, and I'll do another pass through and make sure there isn't anything glaringly wrong. Then I'll declare this edit finished! Ealdgyth | Talk 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've stared at it some more. I moved a few things around and attempted to make sure everything was as clear as I can make it. Be bold! Ealdgyth | Talk 17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3 holds

Noticed you've placed holds on Thomas de Dundee, Thomas de Buittle and Nicholas de Balmyle. I just wanted to let you know that Deacon has just started a short wiki-break and maybe you could extend your holds by say a further 7 days? Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Bill Reid | Talk 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look and let me know what you think

I have rewritten the first part of the church history at Roman Catholic Church - the section on Roman Empire. Could you please take a moment and read that section and let me know if this is OK. I will continue a rewrite of the other sections if you are ok with this one. I just want to make sure before I spend any more time. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am finished with the next history section - the Middle Ages at Roman Catholic Church and would like to know what you think if you have time. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I am finished with all content for this article in the history section. I have to add some references but I want to know if you think the content is OK. Am I missing anything? Please let me know what you think. Thanks again! NancyHeise (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ready for another look at Roman Catholic Church. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

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

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 4 - February 2008 January issue | March issue 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: AnonEMouse (talk · contribs) Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) Casliber (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) Johnfos (talk · contribs) M3tal H3ad (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 176 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 15 new members that joined during the month of January: Atlantik (talk · contribs) Auawise (talk · contribs) Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Ddstretch (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) FamicomJL (talk · contribs) Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs) jackturner3 (talk · contribs) Kbthompson (talk · contribs) Keilana (talk · contribs) Miranda (talk · contribs) pcbene (talk · contribs) Skeeker (talk · contribs) Snowolf (talk · contribs) 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. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Justin Tuck • Tristan Tzara • The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode) Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 215 articles (44 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 8 June 2008 | edit

[edit] Natalee Holloway

Please see Talk:Natalee Holloway regarding your recent review. - auburnpilot talk 17:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)e

[edit] RE:3 GA Nominees

Hi. Thanks for reviewing these. I've tried to address your concerns. Incidentally, to explain the two points with which you seemed to have most issued 1) Although use of semicolons is declining in English ... I realise this ... I used them sometimes to clarify the relationship between statements and footnotes. 2) I find 3 or 4 = headers prettier than 2. Small points, but just explaining myself. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blessed Ash Wednesday

Thinking of you as we start Lent. May you have a blessed journey to Easter, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA in articlehistory

FYI, I corrected the errors, which you can see lit up in red by scrolling to the bottom of the talk page after editing articlehistory. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave the article link above (Roman Catholic Church). I fixed other errors in the template, but what triggered the error was a faulty topic listing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church Thank You

For your time and effort in reviewing this and guiding us editors in making the article a Good Article! Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thelema

Hi, thanks for passing Thelema as a good article. One note and a question. There seems to be a problem with the little image for point 2c. I assume this was an "aye"? Also, you note that some of the prose needs improving. Would you mind pointing out one or two places where such improvement is most needed? Will in China (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thurstan

I think Ive addressed your concerns, so when you have a chance, feel free to tell me I totally muddled things worse! (grins). Ealdgyth | Talk 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! It is hard to necessarily write about something you know a LOT about, and still make it comprehensible to someone who doesn't have your background. Your review was quite helpful!Ealdgyth | Talk 17:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allah

Hi Jackturner3,

Thank you for the review. Please take a look at the talk page of Allah where I have posted a comment in reply to your review. Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Celestial Masters GA review

Thanks for the review, you got it just in time, as I am going to China today and my future editing ability is in doubt due to wikipedia being banned there. I deleted the image in question and replaced italic html tags with wikipedia-appropriate ones. Hope that is enough for a promotion! Zeus1234 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Wow, awesome. Thanks for the review of pied-noir! I'll get back to you as soon as issues are addressed! Lazulilasher (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, I addressed the concerns which you raised in the GA review (as well as a few other small cp edits) and believe that the article now satisfies your criteria. Thanks for the review, again. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism in Cuba

Hey there, thanks for doing the review. I'm curius though, the Alfredo Lopez photo has a fair-use rationale, I'm curious what more of one you think it needs? I'll try to get on fixing the prose a bit and let you know when it's ready. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reviewing Ganesha Purana and Consorts of Ganesha. A request: please update class = GA of Wikiprojects banners on talk pages, when u pass an article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CrimethInc.

Yo Jack, I've had a go at rewriting the CrimethInc. article which you (justly) failed for GA so as to include more criticism and detail on activities. I was wondering if you could give the article a quick informal glance to see if it was what you had in mind? Regards, скоморохъ 13:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Kleidion

Hi, you had this under GA review for a second opinon and its been more than a week since you last commented. I'm now happy to pass the article, are you? Leave a note on the talk page if your OK with the article now and I'll do all the fiddly stuff. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National symbols of Pakistan review

Hi Jack. Apologies for taking over the review of this article; as you hadn't replied for a few weeks, I've assumed you were on a real life imposed wikibreak (something's really got to be done about real life taking over from us here, eh? ;-) --jwanders^Talk 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 5 - March 2008 February issue | April issue 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: Blnguyen (talk · contribs) David Fuchs (talk · contribs) Derek.cashman (talk · contribs) Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Calbear22 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Jackturner3 (talk · contribs) TimVickers (talk · contribs) VanTucky (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 185 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 9 new members that joined during the month of February: Bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs) Canyouhearmenow (talk · contribs) Chrisisinchrist (talk · contribs) Ed! (talk · contribs) Juliancolton (talk · contribs) Kakofonous (talk · contribs) LOTRrules (talk · contribs) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) Nousernamesleft (talk · contribs) 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 By Geometry guy 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. OhanaUnited Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here. Dr. Cash Contributors to this Issue Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) Geometry guy (News Correspondent) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Justin Tuck • Tristan Tzara • The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode) Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 215 articles (44 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 8 June 2008 | edit

[edit] Western Rite Orthodoxy

Hello. I've looked up what I can with this article, and I see you're right. There aren't many sources to go on. The next time you'll be active enough to deal with content issues, please feel free to nominate the article again to get another reviewer. I'll deal with any manual of style or other concerns the other reviewer raises. If you could put any of the MA theses online as a PDF somewhere, it would help. Thanks. Gimmetrow 07:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GAR:Allah

Hi, Aminz has renominated the article. I read your viewpoint[3] and there is also reassessment. I think the article has reached good article criteria. Of course I don't expect this article discuss about the concept of God in Islam due to the fact that there are some other articles such as God in Islam and Tawhid. This issue has clarified at the beginning of the article. However I'd like to know your idea about the issue before accepting it as a Good article.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A photo for you

You might like this: Image:Lutheran Paraments.jpg Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Towson United Methodist Church

Hi,

Since you last failed this GAC, I've done a major rewrite and expansion to address the gaps identified. I wonder if you'd take a look at it, to see if it's ready for GA reassessment now? JGHowes ^talk - 19:27, 2 April 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

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 6 - April 2008 March issue | May issue 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: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Limetolime (talk · contribs) Malachirality (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Wrad (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 195 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 13 new members that joined during the month of March: AndreNatas (talk · contribs) Dank55 (talk · contribs) English836 (talk · contribs) ExplorerCY (talk · contribs) JayJ47 (talk · contribs) Mastrchf91 (talk · contribs) MBK004 (talk · contribs) Million Moments (talk · contribs) Neparis (talk · contribs) Nicholas Perkins (talk · contribs) NimiTize (talk · contribs) PGPirate (talk · contribs) Zenlax (talk · contribs) 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. Delisting instructions 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 Dr. Cash (Lead Editor, Distributor) OhanaUnited (GA Sweeps and Did You Know correspondent) EyeSerene (Article) Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Justin Tuck • Tristan Tzara • The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode) Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 215 articles (44 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 8 June 2008 | edit

[edit] WikiProject Christianity

Hello Jackturner3!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

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

The WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter Volume I, No. 7 - May 2008 April issue 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: Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) Drewcifer3000 (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Gary King (talk · contribs) Jbmurray (talk · contribs) Kaypoh (talk · contribs) Lpangelrob (talk · contribs) Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Member News There are now 212 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to the 17 new members that joined during the month of April: Affinity likely (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) Edmund Patrick (talk · contribs) Eustress (talk · contribs) IMatthew (talk · contribs) Kironide (talk · contribs) Makeshift Thackery (talk · contribs) Mm40 (talk · contribs) Nikki311 (talk · contribs) Noble Story (talk · contribs) Peanut4 (talk · contribs) Realist2 (talk · contribs) SorryGuy (talk · contribs) Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) WBOSITG (talk · contribs) Will381796 (talk · contribs) 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 This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Choctaw • One Night Stand (2007) • Justin Tuck • Tristan Tzara • The Stake Out (Seinfeld episode) Reassessment: Madonna (entertainer) • Sweeps / List: references (All Categories), image tags (All Categories), article quality (All Categories) Possible GAs Needing References: Clarinet • Carleton University • Appalachian Mountains Task forces: Project quality • Unreferenced GA Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations queue: 215 articles (44 of them are on hold) as of 08:00, 8 June 2008 | edit

[edit] Western-Rite Orthodoxy

Thanks. It's not on my watchlist. Lima (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)