Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers.
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks so much for all your work on improving the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article and getting it to GA Status. I've almost never edited the article but still wanted to say thanks. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 16:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wasn't it already at GA status? I've lost track, partly from having been away for a bit just lately. Anyway, thanks very much. It's nice to do work that's appreciated. :) Let's see if we can now get it up to FA status, though the work to be done is a bit daunting. Metamagician3000 21:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belatedthank you for all of your kind words.
I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?
Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.
Whoo, I'm surprised how many of you all are still fairly active, given how long I've been dilly-dallying about getting these out. Good to see you're still about, doing your thing. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I noted your comment on the Wales talk page about the Richard Gere dispute. It may be helpful for you to leave a comment on the Gere talk page. Thanks. FNMF 06:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it, but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), and there is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can you temporarily apply an sprotected2 tag to the Desposyni article? The article is being vandalized, despite several requests to stop, by IPs pushing a religious POV and misrepresenting the views of secondary sources. Ovadyah 14:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done. I semi-protected it with an expiry of a week. Let me know if problems resume after that. Metamagician3000 10:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think that a fuller lead would help the article a lot. I've added a couple of sentences, but it needs more. The lead should ideally be about three paragraphs and give an overview of the whole article. Metamagician3000 04:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
You're an admin, would you please semiprotect Fighting in ice hockey for 24 hours? It is being vandalized pretty heavily, and WP:RFP seems to have no one monitoring it currently. Cheers, TheHybrid 13:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but I don't think I should do this. We are always very keen not to protect or semi-protect the day's featured article. I know that the featured article is often heavily vandalised, but conversely a lot of admins and other regulars will be watching it. Metamagician3000 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I can understand that. At the moment it appears that only 2 users and one admin, one of the users being myself and the admin being you, are watching it currently. Do you think that an hour would be acceptable? If not I understand, and I won't ask anymore. Cheers, TheHybrid 13:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Nevermind, the calvalry has arrived. Have a nice day, TheHybrid 14:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Loremaster has been driven off the featured Ebionites article by a disruptive editor, Michael C. Price. I'm about to leave myself. Michael has a unique perspective on the application of undue weight (that there isn't any), and insists that all POVs must be represented in the article, no matter how fringe. This argument is used to push an extreme POV that is a synthesis, namely that prominent individuals (Jesus, John the Baptist, James the Just, all the apostles except Paul) in the early Church were all Ebionites, and that the early Christian Church in general and the Essenes that preceeded them were all Ebionites. These claims are then used to deny the historicity of orthodox Christianity (and implicity "prove" it is a false religion). My specific objection is that the secondary sources used to support these "claims" don't make these sweeping assertions. Opinions of various sources are woven together in a synthesis which is then put into the mouths of the sources. Even after a detailed examination of the sources reveals they don't say what is claimed, this editor refuses to retract his statements or allow them to be modified. I feel personally that this rises to the level of fraud. We are weary of tracking down every source (some of them are obscure) to verify that what is being stated is accurate. Further, calling the accuracy of any of the claims into question leads to raging edit wars on the talk page. I requested comments from Ft/N, but they have been ignored. I requested an RFC, but there has been no response after two weeks. I also recently posted a request for input on the discussion board at WikiProject Jewish History. Can you recommend a further course of action? Ovadyah 14:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree 100% with Ovadyah. --Loremaster 15:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
And so do I. And I would add the tendency to ignore a more mainstream view, restricting "secondary sources" to a few authors that are quoted (not always accurately, see above) ad nauseum and in a way that often endorses them. And a tendency to misread other editors' comments. Str1977(smile back) 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
It should be noted that Michael recently made major revisions to the Tabor article, so it would not be surprising to find that Tabor's reported "views" seem to be convergent. Ovadyah 17:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
All the editors that helped to make the Ebionites article FA quality have been run off. Therefore, I am applying an "expert-verify" tag to the article. I will notify AN/I and contact some academics in the field to help. Ovadyah 13:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, folks. I've been on an extended semi-wikibreak lately, while focused on some real-life issues. I'll take a look at what has happened to the article, and on the talk page, but I don't know what I can do to help with what is really a content dispute, if I understand correctly. Is there any consensus among the editors other than Michael? I do think there could be an issue of undue weight here. Metamagician3000 14:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Greetings Meta. Loremaster and I have left the article in disgust. The consensus among the previous editors, other than Michael, is that the article content has been undermined by editorial syntheses. I filed an incident report with AN/I, and the article is undergoing an FAR. It would be a shame to have the article demoted after so much work, but I don't see any other alternative. The article needs oversight. Someone has to enforce consensus and the principles of undue weight. That was why I requested an RFC. One editor shouldn't be able to disruptively undermine the efforts of three other editors that respect the process of editing by consensus. I left the same message with Jayjg, but he has been off-Wiki too. Ovadyah 20:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I left an invitation on Michael Price's talk page to work consensually with the other editors to clean up the problems that have been tagged for some time now. Would you be willing to help? I would like to head off having the article delisted as a Featured Article during FAR if possible. We would greatly appreciate it if you could provide some oversight. Ovadyah 17:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have filed a request with the Mediation Committee for formal mediation. Please feel free to add your perspectives to the RfM talk page. Ovadyah 00:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Michael Price initially agreed to and then withdrew from formal mediation. A request for arbitration has been filed here to deal with user conduct issues. Ovadyah 18:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologiesedit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hello! The Melburnians are having another meet-up! Please consult this page if you are interested to participate in the discussion! Thanks! Phgao 03:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Admin Metamagician3000, I'm a newbie and have made some newbie mistakes by not knowing all the detailed rules that go with Wikipedia. I'm sorry for that, and don't make them again when I learn and understand them. Unfortunately, I find myself being flamed to death, by supporter of www.ChronicProstatitis.com, a commercial website, known for spamming and flaming. Please see sci.med.prostate.prostatitis for endless examples of spamming and flaming from www.ChronicProstatitis.com. I am not being allowed to edit the Prostatitis page based on the peer-reviewed medical literature and I am also being flamed there. This person, SKOPP, continually brings up issues that are not related to the actual edits, and "OWNS" the prostatitis page. You can see his views yourself, as they are the only ones allowed there, but if you had to describe his beliefs in one word, in essence he believes that chronic prostatitis is caused by "stress." Please of course see for yourself as it is unfair to have another say what your views are, as SKOPP is constantly doing to me, as he makes Straw Man arguments. Other points of view are not being allowed on that page. Also, SKOPP keeps putting up spam links to www.ChronicProstatitis.com, most recently by defacing apparently copyrighted medical images with billboard links across them. False allegations of sock puppetry have been made against me, but I do not know how to prove myself innocent. I am not on an individual ISP. But I have today asked all others who know about this edit war who support me to stop posting as they apparently do so without signing in. The claim that I am another registered user on that discussion is totally false. The SOUND and FURY of the personal attacks and innuendo against me are far beyond the importance of the edits. I'm a newbie and I'm attempting to contribute in good faith, learning some rules and lessons as I go. Please help. I'm happy to correct anything I do wrong, and I have disengaged several times before to no avail. The page is:
ProstatitisReasonableLogicalMan 17:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been trying to work with both these editors over what has been a long running edit war over each objecting to the other's external link. Both seem to have accepted allowing others to review the medical literature (which I shall try to do over the next few days), but I too would welcome anyone else helping out in helping to formulate a consensus as to what the literature supports as NPOV reflection here in wikipedia. Two immediate issues, firstly is the external link to a series of pictures acceptable under WP:EL (certainly the links to the other website have just now been toned down) ? Secondly over nature of chronic prostatitis as to cause and treatment approaches. David RubenTalk 01:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry guys - I'm not around much of late ... hope to return to more active duty soon. I'll have a look at your problem with the article when I get a minute. Metamagician3000 11:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
David, I'm way out of my depth here, having started to look at this. I'll see what sense I can make of it but if it involves reviewing the medical literature it will be beyond my expertise. Metamagician3000 10:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 01:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
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 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).
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:
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 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.
OhanaUnited
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!
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 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).
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:
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:
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 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.
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 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).
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:
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 it 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.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I see you have a history of working on the article Janeen Webb. I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. BirgitteSB 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
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 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 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!
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.
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.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello Metamagician. The Priory of Sion article is a good article nominee. I'll understand if you are too busy but could you review it to see if it qualifies?Let me know either way as soon as possible. Loremaster (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
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 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).
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:
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:Good articles without topic parameter 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.
...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.
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
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 Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
Image copyright problem with File:Alison Goodman037A92pix.jpgedit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading File:Alison Goodman037A92pix.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello
First of all I have to say it is a great work what you are doing on wikipedia, realy.
Would you please check this website ( humansfuture.org ), it is a scientific, informative and well made site.
Long time ago it was spammed by some ignorant member and then was blacklisted by some wikipedia adminstrators here.
I tried to convince them to unblock the site to give it a chance to be used on wikipedia as a good source of information but they dont see the value of it, maybe beacuse it is not their field of interest or speciality.
Please I need you to help me and to support my proposal here to get the website unblocked.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is another attempt to delete the Worldcon GoH category. Since you participated in the last discussion, I thought you might be interested.Shsilver (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Metamagician.
I was wondering if you could not only intervene to end the dispute I am having with “JackBlack” on the Talk:Technological utopianism page but also help me improve the Technological utopianism article as a relative expert on the subject. --Loremaster (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not really very active here at the moment. Not enough to sort out this particular dispute. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Don't worry about it. It seems like the dispute is resolving itself. That being said, you are more than welcomed to improve the article when you find the time. --Loremaster (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Biased editing of Technological Utopianism by Loremaster.
Due to your past contribution to Singularitarianism, you may want to help editing the Technological utopianism article because currently only one editor is contributing to the article. The Singularitarianism Article could also benefit from your help.
I feel Loremaster is editing Singularitarianism and Technological utopianism in a biased manner in accordance with his Save The Earth propaganda. Loremasters's ideology seems to verge towards Neo-Luddism. Here are the damming facts Loremaster has stated in discussion:
Loremaster says he is:
"...critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms."
Loremaster wants people to:
"...stop indulging in techno-utopian fantasies... ...so that we can all focus on energies on saving the planet."
Loremaster sees his editing as a 'fight' and he states:
"Although I am convinced that the world is in fact heading toward an ecological catastrophe, I think it can be averted and my optimism makes me want to fight to do do just that."
In light of the fact Metamagician3000 and I have collaborated extensively in the past to improve and expand the Transhumamism enough that it became a Featured Article, he knows me well enough to know that I have never let my biases prevent me from editing an article from a neutral point of view.
Despite the fact that I openly admit to being a technorealist who is critical of techno-utopianism in all its forms, I have let never this point of view influence any of my edits or reverts of the Technological utopianism article. On the contrary, I am the person most responsible for expanding this article with content some would argue is “pro-techno-utopian” (i.e. passages from James Hughes' book Citizen Cyborg).
I find it disgusting that User:86.174.64.123 would take comments I made out of context to falsely make it seem I see my editing of any article as part of my fight for the environment.
In light of this outrageous act of bad faith, I will do everything in my power to get this jerk banned from Wikipedia.
The comments do seem to be taken out of context, but I don't think talk of trying to get people banned helps either. There'd need to be some kind of record of conduct that violates policies.
To the anonymous editor, this is just a suggestion, but do you have an identity other than an IP address? I think it's always helpful to create an identity that you can be known and recognised by, and under which you can build up a reputation as a good-faith contributor. Metamagician3000 (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello Metamagician. The dispute between me and this anonymous user (who sometimes call himself “JackBlack” but refuses to create a user account) has been more or less resolved a few weeks ago. --Loremaster (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
