Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment

This page, a part of the Good article talk page collection, is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to go retrieve it. Current Archive location: Wikipedia talk:Good article review/archive3

Archives
2006 2007: January - May • June - Present

Template:GAR

Just as a heads up, I created this template to make it easier to create GAR reviews. An example of it in use can be found at User:Giggy/GAR template preview. I also changed Wikipedia:Good article review/guidelines to note this. Giggy ^Talk 02:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Great idea. Though I'm a little confused about the (De)listing line. What's that all about? Drewcifer3000 03:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It contains links to edit WP:GA, Template:GA number, the article's talk page, and WP:GA/R. When you close the debate and archive, you have to edit all those pages (in cases of delisting, or of giving the article GA status). The article talk and GAR need to be edited regardless, so it just makes it a bit easier. Giggy ^Talk 03:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought GimmeBot or something updated the GA count template automatically....? Homestarmy 03:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It does. It also sorts and corrects listing errors. I always update the count myself, however, so that the number is as accurate as possible. If it's no longer necessary, the edit link beside it could be removed. :/ As far as the template goes, very nice. Lara♥Love 04:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also, tho. Looking at the (De)listing line. I take it you have them in order of steps? I don't know how everyone else does it, but I archive the discussion first. Then go to GA, delist the article and include the link to the archived discussion in the edit summary. Update the count. Then I go to the article talk page and leave a message with the link to the discussion there as well. Lara♥Love 04:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's in a totally random order :) Feel free to change it to the order you prefer. And yes, I update the T:GA count myself too, even though the bot does it. Don't trust bots! Giggy ^Talk 05:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I swapped it. I think the number of GA project templates doubled today. :p Lara♥Love 05:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope :) Giggy ^Talk 05:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I sit corrected. I guess our three didn't add much, lol. Lara♥Love 06:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Giggy is gone, so this is weird now. But I have a concern about this template. It makes the page kind of cluttered looking. I don't suppose their is some way to remove the double article title? I mean, I think to have the link to the talk and history and all that, which is helpful, it has to remain that way, and to keep the TOC, we have to have the header. I don't know. Anyone have experience with this sort of template that can comment? Lara♥Love 05:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at th etemplate now, is that what you meant? T Rex | talk 05:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was thinking of something a little more drastic. I fixed it. I removed the header all together. The header is created in GA/R for the TOC. It's pointless to have a subheader of the same. I tested it. Looks much better. Lara♥Love 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In-line citations and potential changes to GA criteria

I have started a discussion over at the GA criteria page about the requirement of in-line citations in GA articles. Hopefully this should clear up quite a bit of debate over at WP:GA/R and elsewhere. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drewcifer 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(Over)use of boldface?

Is anyone else bothered by the excessive use of boldface type in certain GARs, such as RevoPower? Maybe I'm just picking at nits, but I find it annoying. Majoreditor 20:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It started many months ago, but i've never been really annoyed by it. The boilerplate text for the GA/R template is kind of annoying though, since its just repeated over and over as you scroll down, and in short reviews, I think it gives the illusion that there's more commentary on the GA/R than there really is. Homestarmy 02:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Not enough in-line citations

Further to discussions at WP:WIAGA, basic policy and my numerous attempts to elicit specifics in response to various GA/R nominations,[1][2][3]. As my requests have been entirely ignored, I am giving notice here that I'll start to close GA/R's which are founded solely on this criteria unless we get some specific examples into these reviews. To say "not enough inline citations" is just about the most lazy and binary way I can think of of reviewing. We could get a bot to do it - as Ling, mentions at WIAGA, "Citation is a cognitive process" - that means thought and judgement are required to justify whether or not a specific sentence requires a citation. Please, please see WP:V and WP:Cite and WP:WHEN. If you have a problem with aspects of an article's text which you think is missing a citation - you need to bring that sentence to GA/R or fact tag it. Otherwise the author is none-the-wiser as to exactly what your objection is. If you can't tell him/her then they can't do anything about it, and your complaint is inactionable and therefore out of process.--Joopercoopers 12:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This comment comes up so much and I hate it to. When asked to provide examples of what they feel should be cited, reviewers are rarely forthcoming, which is very detrimental to the process. --ZincBelief 15:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is somewhat unhelpful, and was once a target of frequent criticism, since people accused reviewers of basically being bean counters who counted the number of inline citations. Inline citations alone don't always reference an article, certain short sections utilizing summary style can borrow their referenced status from the parent, and some general references can cover material, though of course, the fight over the inline citations criteria blurs that line. (The new criteria would make it invalid for general references to cover material if an inline citation could be appropriate.) Homestarmy 15:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that all these guides, policies and essays you post explain what needs to be sourced. We shouldn't have to go through every article and tag every sentence. Look at the policies you post and figure it out. If it isn't common knowledge, it needs a source, otherwise your writing original research, which is in the GA criteria. Lara♥Love 15:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

NO! the reason I'm prompted to this action is there is a fundamental misunderstanding of policy operating on these pages. Yes, matters which aren't common knowledge should be sourced - but a source is provided in the reference section. An in-line citation is required for

1. Quotations – When quoting published material, the quote should be attributed in the text and a citation placed after it.
2. Data and statistics
3. Counter-intuitive statements – Statements likely to surprise the reader should be cited. ie. Challengeable material or that likely to be challenged
4. Opinions
5. Contentious statements about living people

--Joopercoopers 16:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, I am a very strong advocate for citing claims. I think many people are a little leary of the reliability of WP. People would like to be able to say I found this fact on WP and I know it is true because WP says so. However, we are truly a tertiary resource. Thus, everything we print should be something that someone else (hopefully a WP:RS) said. It is best if those someones are verifiable to the reader. Thus, I feel most interesting claims that a reader would want to state as a fact should be cited. The reader should be able to say I found this claim on WP and they say that so and so said it. If we do not properly cite interesting facts and err on the side of overciting this is not likely to happen. The standard of general knowledge is vague and can lead to problems. I often see general knowledge statement tagged with {{fact}} and I usually agree they should be cited. I have seen statements like Pamela Anderson is a popular celebrity known for her large breast or Wayne Gretsky is widely considered the greatest hockey player ever thusly tagged. Such actions generally lead to either proper citation or removal. That phrase Challenged or likely to be challenged in the abstract is undefined and begs the question by whom? I guess it might be reasonable to add by a reasonable person, but then we have to ask did the reasonable person have an understanding of the topic on the page or was he coming to WP to learn about the topic? Are we suppose to write the encyclopedia for an audience that might be learning and thus doubtful of any extraordinary claim? Do we expect the reader to be experts? A debate I am having on Gilbert Perreault is revolving around the fact that as hockey fans many things would not be challenged. However, maybe a biography researcher, a History of Buffalo or history of Quebec researcher might challenge a fact in the article. I tend to err on the side that any fact I think is even remotely interesting should be cited as a tertiary resource editor/author. I do not know if I am right, but I do know despite my poor writing I am able to get a lot of thing promoted up the quality scale with that approach. Anything I write, I try to write as if it will not be believed unless cited. Everything on WP is suppose to be something we say someone else said. In fact, everything on this tertiary resource is suppose to be something a reliable secondary source said. Regardless, of the fact, it is suppose to be something someone else said. In my highest quality efforts I attempt to cite my articles as if anything I don't cite is unverified. That is my standard of challenged or likely to be challenged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of that's your choice Tony and I applaud it, but that doesn't mean it's required of you by policy.--Joopercoopers 20:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) Yes! It's a matter of verifiability. You can have a dozen statements that aren't common knowledge included in an article and put your sources in the references section at the end, but that doesn't help a reader who wants to verify it. How are they to know what came from which source? If they aren't available online, do they just go check out every listed book and read them all? If you don't like the look of in-lines, consider placing them at the end of paragraphs rather than the end of sentences. At least then, the reader has a general idea of where to look. That's my view of it. Lara♥Love 18:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well your view of policy is above and beyond that actually required - if you want to change this, take it up at WP:V, not here. --Joopercoopers 18:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's clearly in line with policy. As Tony alluded to it's in the "Challenged or likely to be challenged". We must never forget that "Wikipedia is for the readers, not the editors" and we can not assume a base of knowledge for our readers beyond what can be considered undoubtedly common knowledge (i.e. The Earth is round type stuff). It is unfair to assume that every reader is going to be an expert in any given subject and it is plausible that they may question something being stated as absolute fact that isn't common knowledge. While I agree that there should never be an "X number of cites required" criteria, I think it's fair to say that if any article has several paragraphs of claims without nary a cite to be found that the article is certainly lacking in the WP:V area. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just not the case - we don't need to treat our readers like idiots and spoon feed them at every turn. In line citations disrupt the flow of text and make it harder to read. Policy and consensus has established where we need to provide inline citations and deems the provision of a references section - like most academic literature you might read - acceptable. Challengable or likely to be challenged does not mean - by imbeciles - it implies a reasonable standard of education. Summary style allows citations to be maintained in the daughter articles and it's quite possible that an article may not require any citations at all because it makes no statements likely to be challenged. My purpose here however is to assert that if this 'insufficient citations' business is to continue - the reviewers need to point out the specifics (or at the very least a good sample) of the deficiencies. --Joopercoopers 19:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the "harder to read" is a personal opinion-and a stylistic one at that. Not everyone shares the same opinion. However, WP:V is a very practical consideration and it is a commitment to our readers that they will be able to verify what they have read and be able to trust that it is true. No one is asking that we treat our readers like idiots which is why universal common knowledge is rarely ever cited or requested to be. But on the flip side it is still not fair to expect our readers to be experts in the subject area and to already know that this or that is true and that no one "in the field" would ever challenge it. Why are our readers even coming to the article in the first place if we are assuming for them to know everything already? It's seems counterintuitive. You must keep in mind that a "reasonable standard of education" is very vague and subject to our own systematic bias. Considering the worldwide audience that Wikipedia has, it is rather elitist of us to assume that everyone will have the same level of education that we were fortunate enough to have. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can all agree that when a reviewer challenges an article for lack of citations the reviewer should at least mention some specific examples of material which should be cited in the article. However, it is not incumbent upon the reviewer to point out every specific instance which should be cited.

Thoughts? Majoreditor 19:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is reasonable. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Better, but really are we going to get into a situation where the reviewers say eg. "this one sentence". The reviewee fixes it and then the reviewer says "they're still not all fixed" - hardly seems fair. The reviewer should be saying which one's they think should be fixed most importantly - this is GA after all and my understanding was a more relaxed view is supposed to be taken - there's a difference between wikipedias Best and simply 'good'. Verifiability applies to all of wikipedia, but the presence of in-line citations is not the sole indicator of whether or not an article is verifiable. Simply an indicator of how convenient that verifiability may be. If reviewers are just going to say "all statements need cites" then we're in trouble.--Joopercoopers 19:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) I completely disagree. As more and more articles come through GAC, the demands on the reviewers gets higher and higher. It's the same at GA/R. We can't walk editors through every sentence of an article and point out every detail. That's ridiculous. That's what the criteria are for. An article should not be nominated until the nominator feels it passes all of the criteria. Certainly things will be overlooked, and that's the point of the review, but we can't hold every custodian's hand, so to speak. I agree that pointing out a couple of examples is reasonable. To fact tag every sentence in need of a source, that's not our job as reviewers. It's like a college applicant disagreeing with the requirements of the college for which they have applied, then demanding that the college help them meet the requirements. It's the job of the custodian attempting to achieve GA to bring the article up to standards. How much help you get from your reviewer is up to them. Lara♥Love 19:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Personally I dislike references that aren't Inline. Mainly, because they open up the road to "Hey authors, put your book here and get free publicity!", without actually saying what they back up in the article. This would be appropriate in a further reading section, not as a reference to back up a statement. You also have to remember that the vast majority of people are idiots, and Wikipedia is pop culture now, we shouldn't lower ourselves down to Simple English Wikipedia levels, but we shouldn't make things needlessly confusing either, is a good example. Anyway, back to my main point, unused references are very bad ideas, they lead to plugging. See WP:LINKSPAM, It is also important to avoid giving an opportunity to spammers, which is exactly what general references are. They're little more than external links in the wrong section, and less prone to deletion . I do agree strongly with Majoreditor that any time someone says that an article lacks sources for statements (or vice versa in AFDs), they should back it up by the unsourced sentence (or the reliable source they're claiming) --lucid 19:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Asking for inline cites w/o actionable details, preferably {{Fact}} tags, is unacceptably unfair. -- Ling.Nut 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone that disagrees with that statement, though? --lucid 20:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Lara does - and no one on the reviews I requested examples from has bothered to oblige me. --Joopercoopers 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agne "WP:V is a commitment to our readers that they will be able to verify what they have read and be able to trust that it is true". I don't dispute this. The presence of reference section makes an article verifiable and in-line cites make that verification more convenient to the reader. It is however an significant step change in policy to say 1. All GA's require inline citations as a matter of course. ie. regardless of 'challengeable' - this isn't even required for FA's and 2. to insist on this requirement here. I'm not here to discuss the fine points of WP:V, I'm saying that the regular contributors to this page have established standards that are way above WP:V. If you've a problem with WP:V take it up and propose a new policy - don't use this page to beat editors into leaving by asserting a consensus of policy that doesn't exist. --Joopercoopers 19:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd also warn that the other extreme - fact bombing is equally unacceptable disruption. --Joopercoopers 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Sorry, but if we're just saying "Not enough cites" without {{fact}} tags, then we need to change the culture. We are providing a service here, not dictating ex cathedra. -- Ling.Nut

Agreed. Comparing GA to a college application is ridiculous. GA is here to promote articles to good status, or give reasonably solid advice to get the article to such a status. Yes, it's not "everybody help me improve this article", but it's not "point out a flaw but don't give me any idea how to improve it" either-- as WIAGA says, people come to Good Article because they think it's as good as they can make it, and they want to get more help. If someone can't bother to spend some of their time to help improve the encyclopedia, they need to leave. There's no point having someone who doesn't care about improving Wikipedia editing it --lucid 20:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I don't agree with that. I said that I don't think every single instance needs to be tagged. Some examples should be enough to get a custodian going in the right direction. The problem with GA/R is that often editors make their recommendations then don't go back. A problem that needs to be addressed. A reason I've slowed my participation in GA/R b/c I'm lacking time right now. But I don't agree that an article should have cites at the end, nor do I agree that an article could essentially be citation free. That's original research, and that's not what Wikipedia is about. Lara♥Love 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Tag representative examples of each type of statement you se that needs to be cited, and explain the tags in detail. -- Ling.Nut 20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm with Laura and Agne27 on this one. Lucid, your implication that devoted editors may "need to leave" if they can't abide by your suggestion isn't going to help build consensus. I'd suggest trying a different approach. Majoreditor 21:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So can you explain in detail to us dullards why GA/R should be a special wikipedia place, where higher standards are required for WP:V and reviewers can just shout 'oppose' without giving specific details of their opposition? --Joopercoopers 21:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Golly, I don't think that GA/R is that different from the corresponding FA sites, editor reviews, RfA, and other fora (forums.) In all cases, commenting editors are most pursuasive when they provide examples to reinforce their assertions. Rarely, however, are these examples exhaustive. Another way to put it: reviewers aren't expected to provide a full-scale red-line mark-up. Majoreditor 22:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I've yet to see anyone provide any examples yet - [4][5][6][7] - apart from this one [[8]]. What's a boy gotta do to get a proper review around here? --Joopercoopers 22:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No they can pick out half a dozen of the most important ones they want to see referencing though. --Joopercoopers 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

To me there's also a matter of equity. Certain articles I've hung around in (Mother Teresa, Anti-Zionism, Poppers...) are more political (in a broad sense) than others David Langford, Il Filostrato, False Dmitriy I...). Why should we set more stringent requirements on the good faith editors of one category than the other? The politics and the edit-warring force editors to provide evidenc of their claims in some articles. In others they don't have to. But when it comes to me looking at an article and assessing its reliability, it is a lot easier to do if it has inline citations. An article such as Weimar Republic may be very good, but it has vast tracts of unreferenced text and 25 sources listed at the end. I have no idea where to check a paragraph or two because I don't know what books, let alone which pages of those books, supplied what information. If it had inline citations I could maybe get one book mentioned out the library, check the facts match up and see whether the more interpretative sections are reported accurtately. Then I can use the rest of the material in the wikipedia article to find out about alternative interpretations of events. So actually, if the edit-warring is kept in limits, a certain amount of challenge will produce a better quality of article and introducing that challenge elsewhere will be useful. As the GA process is about helping people to produce articles of a high quality with the use of reliable sources being a key factor. And imagine an article on someon "Fred Bloggs", at the bottom the following are listed as references: Fred's autobiography, an authorised biography, an unauthorised bigraphy, the authorised biography of someone who clashed with Fred when he was alive, maybe some articles by a range of reporters and in a range of journals. Certain of those sources are more reliable than others. If they're all sat in a list at the bottom of the article and there is no indication of which claim came from which source, how can we know whether individual statements in the article are reliably sourced? The process of moving an article to the less than 1% of wiki articles rated as good should include makign the sourcing clearer.--Peter cohen 23:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You will have in-line citations for

1. Quotations – When quoting published material, the quote should be attributed in the text and a citation placed after it.
2. Data and statistics
3. Counter-intuitive statements – Statements likely to surprise the reader should be cited. ie. Challengeable material or that likely to be challenged
4. Opinions
5. Contentious statements about living people.

Furthermore, because of the 'likely to be challenged' criteria, the answer to your equity example is; politically charged articles are intrinsically more likely to be challenged and will therefore require a higher standard of checkability. Uncontentious articles still require basic verifiability but we maintain that instant fact checking is less important. All information should be found in both GA and FA's reference section but we reserve complete spoon feeding for our very best work. But this isn't an argument or the place to be discussing the rights and wrongs of inline citations - it's about why GA/R is currently asking for more than policy requires; in a mechanistic way with no thought or judgement. --Joopercoopers 23:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if there wasn't like a dozen different (mostly redundant and unnecessary) discussions on somewhere around five different project talk pages, editors would have more time to devote to the project rather than defending, explaining and reverting until their numb in the face and fingertips. Just a thought. Lara♥Love 05:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What flagrant passive aggression, hyperbole and no kind of argument at all - you're just to busy to discuss you judgements?. Please say what you mean Lara - we have the same problem on the GA/R page. Specifics please - 1. Where are the dozen redundant and unnecessary (says who?) discussion? 2. Where are these 5 different talk pages? - I feel I might be missing out, the only discussions I'm aware of relating to this culture at GA is here and WIAGA, perhaps if you've got the time you could let us know. All the arguments that have thus far been produced here though are broad discussions of what WP:V really should be, rather than is - and belong there. I cordially invite you to start a thread as it seems no one is discussing it over there.--Joopercoopers 08:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The page clearly says "This is not a Peer Review Process". If the directions are changed to Joopercoopers suggestion, I suggest that we change the name to Good article peer review and discussion. T Rex | talk 19:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, T Rex.

I think I do say what I mean. And mean what I say. <-- Flashback to the 80s.

Ugh, let's see. There's WT:GA, WT:GA/R, WT:GA/R/guidelines, WT:WIAGA, and I sit corrected. It's only four. There's at least one discussion per page, multiple discussions on some, in at least one instance there are multiple discussions within one discussion, if that makes sense. Probably not, but don't feel bad. Everyone else is getting lost in it, too. Redundant and unnecessary says me, and I'm sure many other editors who didn't just get actively involved in the project this week can agree, considering much of the issues were just brought up and dealt with a few weeks ago. And considering the complete project overhaul that is going on and has nearly halted from all this discussion, I further claim unnecessary. We can only do so much at one time. Particularly when we're distracted and devoting less time to it because of discussions that in at least a couple of cases, carry little if any weight. Lara♥Love 20:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was saying what you were Lara, and I agree with you pretty much. I do feel that a few examples, 2 or 3 should be pointed out in a GA/R addition so that fellow reviewers know that the initial reviewer isn't lying or anything but I don't think that each example should be pointed out. Also due to the spread over discussion, I suggest we make a WP:Good article noticeboard for stuff like this? Yes? no? anyone? T Rex | talk 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

customer service mentality

new thread.. as for changing the culture. I very very firmly believe we need a customer service mentality. Service with a smile. Go the extra mile. Always patient etc. -- Ling.Nut 20:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell have you been getting customer service from!? --lucid 20:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps from the Buddhist gift shop; whose staff would be a welcome addition to this page at anytime. namaste. --Joopercoopers 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Gift shop? Does that mean there should be a pic of Maneki Neko on the project's main page? :-) --Ling.Nut 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Heavens no! The Buddhist gift shop is where you go to hand in all your possessions and relinquish material attachement - it's one of the reasons the staff are so damned happy. (Well that an inner peace I suppose). --Joopercoopers 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) But seriously folks, take my wife — please. :-) Anyhow, I meant what I said. I think we should create a mentality that we are providing a service rather than passing judgment ex cathedra about the quality of articles. -- Ling.Nut 21:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Conceptually, I agree. Majoreditor 22:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But but but I enjoy passing judgement about the quality of articles! The power coursing through my veins when I fail articles is awesome! Homestarmy 23:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the good people in the shop can point the way for you, although leaving high school usually does the same job after a few years :-) --Joopercoopers 23:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent, back to the point) I recommend an "How to be an effective reviewer" page. I'll draft something up and post it here for discussion. (It won't include ex cathedra pontifications from on high though, sorry) --Joopercoopers 09:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Manifesto" or "Our pledge to you"

Ok, let's try User:Joopercoopers/Zen and the art of good reviewing - someone might want to give it a copyedit and check for POV <smiles behind hand> --Joopercoopers 12:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good start and a worthwhile initiative. I may have some suggestions/comments later on when I have a chance to examine it in more detail. Thanks for the initiative. Majoreditor 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

ARG! and oppose Did you get help from anyone in the math project when writing that? We've been over this. You can't require reviewers to make the changes. That is not our job. It is the job of the article custodians (or primary editors, as you refer to them) to maintain the quality of the article. We have enough going on in the project that, with our current participation, we can't go around fixing up every article that's starting to slide from the criteria. And we certainly don't have time to read every article twice and go through and change things in order to gain "moral right" to comment on the article. The fact that we volunteer our time in the project and you (meaning the article custodian) want the article to retain GA is what gives us the right to comment on the article.

No reviewer is required to make any number of trivial edits to the article to be allowed by the custodian to comment on necessary improvements. Considering how many editors are needed to comment in order to close a discussion, this is just another attempt to have reviewers make all the changes to an article so the custodian doesn't have to do it. The same ridiculous changes the math project attempted to make a few weeks ago. It's a review. Not an article over-haul. If you want a place to take an article to have someone fix it for GA, create a task force and get people to join it. But stop attempting to force GA/R reviewers to fix up articles that come through. It's a voluntary option to make changes.

I completely fail to understand why everything has to be sugarcoated in GA/R. Does everyone really think that we have time to go through an article twice and point out all the positives in an article before politely pointing out all the negatives—those we didn't go ahead and fix ourselves before commenting so as to gain our moral right to do so—in a snazzy little customized message, wait a week for a reply, bring up the possibility of GA/R with the list of concerns that we haven't fixed (only because we don't have the knowledge or books; that is to say that if we get no response, we should go ahead and fix everything we can ourselves), wait a few more days, then take it to GA/R and act as sergeant of arms for the days reviews are going on? I mean really? That's not just bending over backwards. That's retrieving the sun and the moon for these editors. These demands are completely ridiculous. We have almost 3,000 articles to go through (not to mention all the new articles coming in daily), and we're expected to go through all this for the ones that don't make the grade? I don't think so.

We've already sacrificed our option for "speedy delist" because it's offensive, apparently. So these travesties that were tagged GA and have no change of being brought up to standards anytime soon are left to sit for days on the GA/R page because it might offend someone to go ahead and delist it so we can get on to other things. I'm surprised we haven't had a backlash for the increase in SNOWBALL archives since the departure of the speedy delist considering SNOWBALL refers to the fact that the article doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell of surviving. But that's apparently better than "speedy delist".

Look. I appreciate your efforts. I understand where you're coming from, but you don't understand what all goes on in this project. You want us to hold every custodian's hand through this process. We simply don't have time for that, nor should it be necessary. You've recommended that every reviewer have a couple GAs under their belt. I have two that I took through GA myself and I don't have empathy for this situation because of it. I made sure (the best that I could) that the articles met the criteria before I nominated them. When they were reviewed, I didn't ask the reviewer to make necessary changes for me. I also didn't expect it. I made the changes, I didn't bitch about it, and my articles both got passed within a day or so. In fact, I think one passed instantly. If they go to GA/R, which I doubt because I maintain them, I'm not going to expect and I'm certainly not going to demand that anyone fix it for me. Lara♥Love 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was offered in a spirit of humour, but with a serious message - your response speaks volumes, thankyou. --Joopercoopers 14:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the humor in it, but how much of it is serious? Those points didn't come off as humor. It reads like the changes you want made peppered with some funnies. Is the whole thing a joke? Lara♥Love 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The thrust is GAR is too high handed, too imperious and too insensitive to editors. That its also mis-informed is a particularly worrying combination. I wouldn't object to any of those points become part of the general attitude around here. If we're going to promote a genuinely collegiate atmosphere, this attitude needs a culture change. There are real people behind these articles - as well as projects Lara - who have invested their free time to do their best - as have you. Your attitude just then, when I attempted a modest change to the [9] the guidelines makes me hope you might be able to understand the editors position - imagine this project is my article. I am left completely cold by "we're just to busy and have to much work to help editors - or even be courteous" Working on a backlog is of practicaly no importance in comparison to retaining and encouraging editors.--Joopercoopers 14:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(EC X 2)While I think that sometimes things can be stand offish around here and other reviews most of the time it is because of thin skin, and nothing else. That essay sounds like it recommends coddling everyone through GAR. If you think GAR is bad, try FAR, which some articles automatically receive after the de facto three month waiting period following the original nomination and passing. Lara brings up some good points. Basically the best of which is that GAR is a review process, not a fix up process. No one expects anyone at peer review or FAR to make the changes they recommend, I can't see why this should be any different. It is only when some one has problems with a review that topics like this come up, no one says jack about the hundreds of reviews that have been closed without issue. I would also note that the idea of "moral rights" is completely contrary to WP:OWN, I could go around wiki leaving comments on pages and FARs and peer reviews and never lift a finger to implement them. Both functions are important to the encyclopedia, however. IvoShandor 14:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think some of it is good and could be incorporated into the page about reviewing, which I think actually does exist somewhere. IvoShandor 14:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(<-)While I agree that it's not the reviewer's responsibility to fix every problem or to point out every fault, Jooper makes an important point concerning tonality. There are unfortunate occassions when a reviewer opts to post a scathing sound bite rather than offering up constructive comments. Perhaps, as Ivo says, there is material here which can be incorporated into the review guidelines/suggestions. Majoreditor 17:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that shouldn't really happen, but you can't control everyone, the comment's contents must be taken into account whenever a review is closed. I assume this happens already. IvoShandor 19:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I have to say about the reviewers advice thing is that the vulgarity really isn't necessary. I know it might seem hard to believe, but there's still some people on the interweb out there who don't actually like having to look at more vulgarity than they have to. Besides, vulgarity lowers respectability, it demonstrates a lack of will to write directly what you want to say, and says to the world "Yea, we could try to make this look as professional as possible, but its so much fun to resort to petty vulgarity instead!". Onto the specifics, I presume that since nobody has challenged Lara's interpretation of the suggestions that it is more or less accurate. If this thing is suggesting that reviewers at GA/R must actively try to fix articles before being allowed to comment, should not notify articles directly when they are obviously deficient, (But rather, mess around with ancillery commentary first) and read the whole thing twice, making an essay for reviewers isn't the way to go about it, the correct way to go about it would be to change the rules of GA/R, which do not include any of those suggestions, rather than making an essay, which by its very nature is non-binding. (At least, I presume its an essay) Also, to Lara, since when has speedy delisting been gone? I though I saw several speedy delists in the past few weeks or so zip by on the 1.0 log, (None which appears to be invalid, though one was a bit late after the commentary) and the only time I haven't been paying attention to these pages was around late August, when I was on vacation. Homestarmy 19:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Too busy to help

I'm so glad you finally said this, Joopers: "we're just to busy and have to much work to help editors - or even be courteous (sic)". This came up the last time, too. I do help. I make many many many edits to the majority of articles I review. All the little non-WIAGA nitpicks I have, I fix myself. Sometimes I'll list them in hopes that the custodian will care enough about quality to work on those things as well, but at the first sign of bitching, I just do it myself.

Here's the issue with you. What you find as discourteous is the fact that your requests for expanded comments were ignored, so you blew up all our project talk pages rather than go to the talk pages of those editors whose comments you wanted expanding. Many editors don't return to a GA/R discussion unless their prompted to. Why would they? They've already made their recommendation. Perhaps you're a single-task editor. But I'm not. I've got all sorts of too much stuff going on, so I don't have time to double check everything. I can't even remember to keep up with many tasks without gentle reminders, but I always finish what I start or get someone to help me if I need it. You don't want editors to help if and when they have time; you want it to be required. What that results in is editors leaving the project because they don't have the time to meet those demands.

95% of my time on WP is invested in this project. I'd estimate that probably over 5,000 of my 6,500+ edits were for this project, either for reviews (for which I have no less than 500 between GAC and GAR), in project space or in editing articles for the project. I've got two task forces to maintain quality of GAs and until sweeps started, I was a regular voice and archivist at GA/R. So how am I to be courteous and comment with a smile when editors come here and alter what they think our project should be because they're upset about how their GA/R went? Lara♥Love 15:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about other editors' experiences, but I found the GA/R reviewers to be hands-on helpful when an article I was involved with came up for review. Lara and other reviewers were very kind and made several helpful edits which improved the article. My two cents is that GA/R is a nicer, more helpful forum than many others I've seen on WP. Majoreditor 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely echo Major's statements about reviewers being hands-on helpful. Almost every review I do, I end up doing a bit of copyediting myself. And I've noticed this in many others. VanTucky ^(talk) 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think all of this varies from reviewer to reviewer. I think the thing we need to remember most is the ultimate goal of all of this is to improve the encyclopedia, I assume we are all here to do this. People should be nice, civil, whatever, sometimes what seems curt and discourteous in print can have no ill-will behind it at all. We should all remember AGF, and the real purpose we are here. I haven't ever felt like reviewers were too heavy-handed, or mean, maybe my experience is different. Recently an article I wrote was nominated and failed, I talked a bit back forth with the reviewer and the experience was helpful, it articulated what needed to be done still. Sure not all comments are helpful but I don't think because of this reason we should assume that GA or the criteria are at fault, sometimes comments just aren't that helpful, this should be taken into account in reviews, I assume it is already. Just my blathering two cents worth. IvoShandor 19:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Redux

There's been a few comments that the situation is getting too complex, being spread out here and at WIAGA. Laralove completely disingenuously suggested I've been bombing all the project pages in a deliberate attempt to destable the project. How dare you. At the time of my query I had commented only here and WT:WIAGA. My comments on Wikipedia talk:Good article review/guidelines came after, and I have not, to date commented at WT:GA. Just basic falsehood - but I'm getting the measure of her now, the gates are shut and no one's coming in to her project without the school tie.

Simply put, the issues are this:-

1. Demands for blanket inline citations are not required by policy but they are being demanded in this project. No where has it ever been required that all facts (no matter how trivial) require inline citations.
2. Apparently, according to Drewcifer, this is because the WIAGA criteria are too ambiguous. I disagree and think he's got the wrong end of the stick.
3. The established practice at FAR is to provide fact tags or examples where reviewers think the article requires them.
4. GA/R has a culture where principle authors aren't respected, where there isn't even enough time to read through articles properly, and where it seems people have set up their own wiki empire completely contrary to the spirit of this project.

I have tried to affect some change from within here. You can see my manifesto as one extreme and Lara's "We changing nothing for you" position as another but be in no doubt, unless this project starts to compromise, I shall start trying to build consensus elsewhere. It might be time we had another airing of what the purpose of the GA system is. --Joopercoopers 10:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Train articles

Further to the mass of train articles reviewed awhile back, I still have a few I intend to eventually list for review. I do not wish to mess around with updating various GA pages (I get confused easily), and that's why I haven't delisted them personally. Since the GAR page is backlogged, it'd be better to swiftly deal with these clear cut cases. If possible, could a / some GA reviewer (s) go through the list below, and then review these articles? It's obvious they fail, no offence to anyone, so if they were promptly delisted it'd save GA/R (and me) some time which could be better spent elsewhere. The articles are the following:

1. Danske Statsbaner has four sporadic citations, way below the requirement.
2. Inverclyde Line has four sporadic citations, well below GA standards.
3. New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway has five sporadic citations which fail to use a citation template, and the article is below the standard.
4. Maglev train is extremely listy and needs a cleanup, below GA standards.
5. Refrigerator car has six sporadic citations (below standard).
6. RER has seven sporadic citations, so needs more verification.
7. Rugby railway station has only one citation.
8. Tay Rail Bridge has four sporadic citations (below standard).
9. London Paddington station has only sporadic citations and is stubby in areas.

Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 09:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)