From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:10, 2 December 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 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK
Adam Cuerden talk 05:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Explain to me why you feel Image:Treehouse of Horror IIIa.jpg should be removed, "if it shows him being drowned" it clearly shows the clown trying to kill Homer, which is discussed in the text, and the main plot of the episode Ctjf83 talk 08:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- it does say "After numerous attempts on Homer’s life" in the text, and that is clearly an attempt on Homer's life. so to make a pic available, do i need to go back and get one of the doll chocking him, or with the knife in his hand? what qualifies as low res? 800x600? 1024x768? Also, if ur going through GAC, can you go up one number from this, and do my Realty Bites? it's been a month, and i'm anxious to see if it passes Ctjf83 talk 09:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- so, my other question....do i need to take a new pic of the doll chocking him, or with the knife in his hand or just not worry about pics...i like to have one for each THOH "episode" Ctjf83 talk 09:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- i hate to be impatiant, but i really am! lol...can u review Realty Bites it is over a month, and one of the 5 longest ones waiting to pass the GAC Ctjf83 talk 04:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
GA review template
Hi Shudde,
Thanks for your comment here. Your comment is greatly appreciated. I don't know what else to say: I don't like the ideas of adding levels of bureaucracy to GAC, and I agree that such changes will only cause the process to become indistinguishable with FAC, leaving no place for articles which are not and may never be suitable for FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I don't know what Ling is trying to do. The consensus seems to be that it's not an ownership issue, so I don't know what he is trying to achieve. - Shudde talk 19:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know; it's clear he's making a good-faith effort to improve the GA process, but the template says nothing indicating ownership of an article (or a review), and Ling's proposal in September was almost the exact opposite of this one: instead of "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", his proposal was that GA reviewers would not be allowed to edit the reviewed article... or at least would not be allowed to touch the citations in the article. Going from "I propose so-and-so cannot edit" to "this template may conceivably cause someone to think s/he can't edit" is such a drastic change. Change can be good, but going from one extreme to the other won't help. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Please re-review the article, as the problems you addressed have since been fixed. xihix(talk) 03:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ctjf83 (talk · contribs) and I noted some of the changes we made to address your GA Review points, in a section below your Review on the article's talk page. Thanks for your time! Cirt (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC).
-
- I'm not sure what else you want me to put for the house? That is all they say about it...I think it is like an old Victorian Mansion, but since I can't verify that, I don't think i should put it in Ctjf83 talk 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- ok, so you want me to put "A" was killed by "B", because of "reason" or something like that? (I'll have to rewatch to find specifics). Also, what do you want oh Phil Hartman? We are having trouble finding much on him Ctjf83 talk 19:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed the house and added one more line about Phil. Gran2 says that is everything there is to the retiring of the characters Ctjf83 talk 19:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Opus Dei Good Article Review
I agree with your assessment on this topic. You are the rightful person to close this because you are neutral and you started this topic. Your argumentation was correct. If there is no consensus, no change. How do you rectify the present situation where Malleus delisted it? Walter Ching (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Shudde, the portal you nominated (Portal:Rugby union) at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates, has been successful. Well done! Merry Christmas to you. All the best, Rt. 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Bien joué! Well done! Ddfree (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Collaboration of the fortnight : Rugby union has received four support votes... I will better the french article fr:rugby à XV... Ddfree (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
DYK
--Gatoclass (talk) 12:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:07, 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)
The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
History of the Highlanders GA Review: On Hold
On Hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
That Rugby Infobox
In the RL section of the rugby combo infobox the State Representative section of a RL career is entitled " State of Origin". Whilst this is great for post-1980 rep careers it's not accurate for pre 1980 when the selection criteria was not Origin based. Can you help me hcnage this to "State Rep" or something similar. Whilst I'm okay with completing templated boxes , I'm not real good at changing them. Do you know how to do this ? -Sticks66 (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thx. On the same score, to have the box accomodate Kiwi and Welsh dual rugby-code internationals then maybe the "State Rep" header is too limiting. Can you tell me how it works in NZ ? Before a RL player represents for New Zealand, is he likely to have represented at a regional or provincial level ? -Sticks66 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: DYK and GA
For DYK, I didn't choose the hooks to be updated, form the looks of it it was a new user who doesn't completely understand which are chosen when just yet. I went and talked to said user. As for Luis Castillo, I'll do waht I can, but send a message to User:Stormtracker94, since it's his article. Wizardman 23:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK
— Dale Arnett (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's one that you deserve credit for. Wizardman (talk · contribs) had given me the banner, but I told him that you beat me to this nomination, and he asked me to post the banner. — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed almost all of the issues and would like you to take a look at it again whenever you have the chance. If I still need to fix anything, please tell me. STORMTRACKER 94 22:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. I'm pretty sure this is able to be passed now. STORMTRACKER 94 22:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The article Highlanders (rugby) you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Highlanders (rugby) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Greenguy1090 (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Has been nominated for deletion by User:Londo06. Your input is requested. --Bob (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Peter de Villiers
--Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Your copyedit request
On 15 August 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on England national rugby union team. Because of 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. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Warwick Armstrong - GA review
Thanks for reviewing Warwick Armstrong. I have addressed all the points raised in some manner and have some queries about some. When possible, could you take another look? Also, I am not sure if the examples of weasel words you provided were exhaustive or if there are others in the article that you wish me to remove? Finding dates for the photos will be difficult but I have someone on the job. Again, thanks. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, that is what I get for rushing. Added now. Thanks, Mattinbgn\talk 10:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Imperial Napoleonic triple crown
Your Imperial Napoleonic Majesty, please keep up the fantastic work. DurovaCharge! 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Invitation
Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies.
If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tags:
- {{Histfact}} displays {history source needed} for requesting sources for historical claims and history context. Click here for more information
- {{Timefact}} displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information
At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.
Daoken 10:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Shudde, I've added a load of comments at the peer review, hope they help. Give me a shout if you need anything more. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your note!
I really appreciate the input! My main question for Raul was about the refs, and if there was some "minimum number" for an article to achieve FA. I definitely do understand that the article is still far away from achieving much more than B-status. Lots of work to do, but I think the framework is there to build a fine article. And once it's expanded, you're certainly right: the lede will need to be much longer. As for GA, I've had friends who were burnt by some rather vacuous commentary on articles there, so I was a bit hesitant to try that route. Is that a commonly accepted first step for FA? Is an article expected to achieve GA first? -- Bellwether BC 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
DYK 2008-01-23
--Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
All Blacks v France FAC
No worries. I hope I'm not being too picky, FA's are, as they say, "examples of Wikipedia's finest work" so I'm determined to ensure anything I'm involved in fits into that category...! I'll go through my comments and strike accordingly. Then I'll "hide" stuff that's finished and create an update of things I'm still concerned about (if any!)... All the best... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for addressing my issue about understanding Test matches and being patient with this American. :) --Laser brain (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
:-)
Hey, no problem! Just part of the job. --.ιΙ Inhuman14 Ιι. 02:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have gone through your portal contributions and you seem to be very good at portals. Would you like me to put you down as featured portal co-directors? Our main duty is to ensure that when someone closes any nomination, it reflects the consensus and follow all the steps when archiving the nomination. OhanaUnitedTalk page 09:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The answer to your 1st question is that current consensus believes that everyone can close nomination. However, if someone can't follow those steps for closing (which I believe is very easy to understand and follow), then I will raise this concern at the talk page to establish a new consensus. For your 2nd question, we never have that problem yet because almost always it's closed by the directors themselves (unless they have conflict of interest). OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Portal:Solar System
Hi Shudde,
Thanks for helping save the gold star. I'm going to help out too. I'll put in a template and archive page for the randomized selections that will make them easier to edit and nominate. Regards, RichardF (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
All Blacks -v- France FAC
Ping! --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ping! --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for your message. I'm acutely aware of the prssing need to get this finished and back to FAC. My apologies for slowing it up. What with RfA, two FAs, and the Milhist election, I've been a bit thinly spread over the last month. However, it is very near the top of my action list :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:18, 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)
The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
|
|
My RfA |
Thank you very much, Shudde, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.
|
Highlanders
Hey Shudde, I will have a good read of it soon. Thanks for the message. Cvene64 (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
coordinator election
The Wikiproject History is going to elect 3 coordinators. As a member you are invited to participate. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Linking two same articles in different languages
Hello Shudde! I am a Wiki novice, and I would like you to help me in the correction of a rugby article, and besides I currently try to link it with its Spanish version. What can I do!! Best regards! --Jogomon88 (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD Notice
As someone who previously nominated this article for deletion, wanted to advise that it has been recreated. (And renominated for deletion under WP:NN, WP:VER and WP:HOAX.) Guliolopez (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:AFC Backlog Drive
|
WikiProject Articles for creation needs your help! |
WikiProject Articles for creation has done a tremendous job in working at WP:AFC over the past 7½ months. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication! Together, we've made the submission process easier and more streamlined, developed tools to make the process go faster for reviewers, and cut the backlog down to a mere fraction of what it once was. Well done!
As you all are aware, however, our work is not quite yet done. The project still has 10 archive pages left to complete, which include over half a month's worth of submissions, many of which have not been completely reviewed. We need your help to finish looking over these neglected submissions so that we can finally remove the backlog notice from the page, and put an end to the more than two year old backlog that has been a thorn in our side for ages! Participants will receive an AFC Barnstar, so hurry up and help out while there's still work to be done! Make sure to sign in on the WikiProject's talk page so we know who is involved in what promises to be our final effort to complete this goal. Thank you for all your help!
- Happy editing as always, Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
|
You are receiving this letter because you are listed as a participant in the Articles for creation WikiProject at WP:WPAFC. To avoid receiving further notices, please remove your name from the list. Thanks!
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:11, 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Image:David,larry.JPG |
|
My RFA |
Thank you muchly for your support in my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!
Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
|
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Blackadder1998.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Blackadder1998.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Wales national team
Hi. I'm who traslated the voice Wales national rugby union team on it.wiki. Here is written that Cliff Morgan has 29 caps for Wales, not 25. Yesterday I corrected it on en.wiki but you cancelled my correction. If you need to contact me, I'm here. Bye --79.16.114.253 (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |