Hello, Leaders100, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Merovingian {TC@} 22:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To wikify something is to make it look good using wiki markup, such as '''bold text''' and [[internal links]]. Most new articles usually don't have any wiki markup, and they look a lot like just blocks of text. So, wikifying simply means cleaning it up. I hope this helps? --Merovingian {TC@} 01:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, those are special codes to generate various characters. They're not unique to wiki markup, though; if I recall correctly they're standard HTML. In other words, it's like using the number pad on your keyboard. Anyways, when you see those in an article you should replace them with the original characters, since the wiki edit box recognizes them. --Merovingian {TC@} 01:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, although I should tell you that if you're seeing those question marks, it means that your browser may not be displaying the characters properly. The examples you provided are Japanese, so if you see question marks instead of Japanese, it's a problem over on your end. To fix this, you may have to install fonts that will allow your browser to show them correctly. Help:Japanese can provide you with appropriate steps to take.
Also, the article you pointed out to me is looking excellent. Your changes to it are very constructive, and I encourage you to continue. You shouldn't worry too much about making mistakes, since you learn along the way. --Merovingian {TC@} 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From that, I'd guess it would mean something like filibustering, obstruction, etc. However, I suggest you just ask the user to clarify his or her statement. --Merovingian {TC@} 19:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your note on my talkpage. The best person I could direct you to for this is Nihonjoe, he is very adept at the help you seek. I hope this helps, and thanks for writing! Chris00:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking excellent so far. As far as becoming a good article, I think it has a good chance. All it really needs is some visual cleanup (small things, really), but content-wise I think it's great. --Merovingian {TC@} 22:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Well, it's looking good so far. You seem to have plenty of material to work with, so verifiability isn't a problem. In fact, it's too long for a stub notice, so you will want to remove that and find an appropriate category to start sorting the article. Maybe Category:Israeli psychologists would work? I noticed you put a cleanup notice on the talk page. For future reference, that goes on the article itself. :) Other than basic cleanup, I think you're good to keep working on it. I don't forsee any notability problems or such. --Merovingian {TC@} 22:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can remove the tag altogether if you think it's unnecessary. Anyways, to find good categories, you may want to start at Category:People, and work your way down that list, getting more exact groups. Also, since I presume Feuerstein is alive, you should add him to Category:Living people, which is used to monitor articles that may be subject to vandalism or other conflict. If you know his birth year, you can add him to Category: 19XX births (supplying the correct year, of course) as well. --Merovingian {TC@} 22:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have been doing some serious work on the Deming article. You've made some great improvements to the article. I've started doing some copyediting and have made a couple of comments in edit summaries (e.g., condensing the lead; format for references). Note that there is a way of shortening long lists of references for the same book or article (which I've started to do for The New Economics for Industry). Once these sorts of tidying up activities are done, we should look at the length of the article. At 35 kb, it is already going beyond the recommended size for good articles. Because Deming is such an important (yet relatively little known) figure, the information about him in the article is all important. However, we could create separate articles for some of the subjects and write short summaries with links from the main article. I would be happy to work on this with you. Sunray18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sunray, I am very interested in working with you on the article. I am new to Wikipedia and understand very little about mark up, the finer points of Wiki style, and visual formatting. I would like to see the article meet the GA criteria. Do you think we could create a plan to meet the FA criteria? I read about the mark up for the multiple notations but had not gotten back to studying how the mark up works. It is great to be able to observe and learn as you make these improvements. I concluded that the lead section needed to be shorter and more focused but wasn't sure where to put the material removed from the lead. I believe all the factual errors have been corrected with the exception of the 14 Points. Several of the points in the article have a few "non Deming" words added. I plan to revise the 14 Points with a list from a published source that draws from later revisions by Deming and quotes him exactly. If you see any statements that need citations, I should be able to provide them. I would like your opinion about adding an image. I am sure permission will be granted for use. http://www.deming.org.uk/images/deming_collage.jpg Thank you. Leaders10011:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great that you are ready to collaborate on the article. To me, collaboration is the essence of Wikipedia. Markup, style and editing are easy to learn. Some groundrules: 1) For markup: copy shamelessly. Look at Featured Articles, see what works and copy it. 2) Style: The WikipediaMoS is pretty good, but doesn't cover everything. A good manual, such as The Chicago Manual of Style, is useful. 3) Editing: Readability is the key to good editing. Readability is improved by: shorter words, shorter sentences, well-organized content. A readability level checker is a great tool. I use one to edit with.
As to Featured Article status, have you seen these guidelines?
I'm no expert on images, but am learning. We would definitely need some good pics and other sorts of images to get FA status. If you contact the Deming people you should ask them to grant Commons attritribution or share alike license. The primer on Wikimedia Commons is pretty good (just click on "Creative Commons" in the "Well-known licences" section of the link). This should give you some ideas about how we can approach people to ask for permissions. We could develop a plan of action on the talk page. Sunray17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the flaws in The Toyota Way. Right off the bat, a table of contents in the beginning of the article doesn't exactly draw the reader in. It is not a bad article, just not all that interesting for a Featured Article. Also, the way it is written, it could be seen as company propaganda. It is overly long and there is no critical analysis or even comparison with similar management systems in other settings. On the other hand, it is useful for someone who wants to know about the Toyota Production System. I will start thinking about an action plan. Sunray18:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it doesn't have very exciting graphics, one nice thing in The Toyota Way is the addition of those info boxes to highlight key points. That is something we might want to do. Some color would make them even better. Sunray18:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a "To do" box at Talk:W. Edwards Deming. Let me know what you think. Go ahead and make any additions or changes you deem necessary. We can add sub-points for each of the points I've listed. For example, we might want to detail the tasks involved with obtaining images, so that the work can be divided up. Also, I gathered a few FA examples for people who lived during Deming's time on my talk page. We can move them to the Deming talk page if you wish. They should provide some good talking points for certain elements of style.Sunray22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "To do" list/plan outline is a good start, thanks for creating it. I am studying the Featured articles you suggested. Leaders10022:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is a good idea to archive the current talk page, unless there is anything that is directly relevant. With respect to Uncle Ed, since he hasn't responded, best to let sleeping dogs lie (so to speak). Sunray00:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing relevant that I can see. Could you archive the page? I don't know how to make an archive. I asked Ed about a week ago when I was looking for editing help. I am sure he would have responded by now if he was interested. I found a missing word typo in one of the Featured articles. Leaders10000:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articles aren't perfect—far from it. I often copyedit FA's after they have been on the Main page. There are much fewer problems of grammar and syntax than there used to be, but it is possible to edit almost any FA. Sunray01:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the talk page and agree that it should be archived, so will do that. One person we should get working on this article is mydogategodshat. He is a serious editor of business and strategic management articles. He hasn't been active on the Deming article since last October. Another one we could contact is Wikid77. He is relatively new to Wikipedia but seems to know his Deming. Sunray02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1900 14 October: William Edwards Deming born in Sioux City, Iowa.
1917 Entered University of Wyoming at Laramie.
1921 Graduated from Wyoming, but stayed on for an extra year to study Mathematics, assist in teaching Engineering, and help in the preparation of engines for tests.
1922 Entered University of Colorado at Boulder for Master's degree in Mathematics and Physics.
1922-24 Assistant Professor of Physics, Colorado Mining School.
1923 Married Agnes Bell.
1924 Graduated from University of Colorado and commenced one year as Assistant Professor of Physics.
1925 Entered Yale for PhD course (on offer of free tuition and appointment as part-time instructor in Physics).
1925-26 Summer work at the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company on research with telephone transmitters, thus becoming aware of Shewhart's work.
1927 First meetings with Shewhart.
1928 Awarded Doctorate in Mathematical Physics from Yale. Appointed as Mathematical Physicist in the Fixed Nitrogen Research Laboratory at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
1930 Agnes Deming died
1930-46 Special lecturer in Mathematics and Statistics in the Graduate School of the National Bureau of Standards
1932 Married Lola Shupe.
1933-53 Head of Department of Mathematics and Statistics in the Graduate School of USDA.
1936 Studied Statistics with R A Fisher at University College, London.
1938 Arranged for Walter Shewhart to deliver a series of lectures on "Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control" at the USDA Graduate School.
1939 Left USDA and joined the National Bureau of the Census as Head Mathematician and Advisor in Sampling. Shewhart's book: Statistical Method from the Viewpoint of Quality Control published
1940 Quality Control methods first applied to National Census, with up to six-fold productivity increases.
1942 Consultant to Defense Department. First quality-control courses given to firms supplying Army ordnance.
1943 Intensive eight-day courses in quality control given throughout United States and Canada. Book: Statistical Adjustment of Data published; this is still frequently referenced in research papers.
1946 Left National Bureau of the Census, and set up office as Consultant in Statistical Studies in Washington DC. Appointed as Full Professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University. Statistician on Allied Mission to observe the Greek elections. Formation of American Society for Quality Control (ASQC) and of the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE).
1947 First visit to Japan, as Advisor in Sampling Techniques to the Supreme Command of the Allied Powers. Consultant in Sampling to the Government of India.
1947-52 Member of United Nations sub commission on Statistical Sampling.
1950 The "vital" visit to Japan; invited by JUSE to teach quality control to engineers, plant managers, and research workers, and also addressed about 100 top industrialists. Book: Some Theory of Sampling1 published.
1951 Deming Prize inaugurated in Japan, following decision by JUSE in December 1950. Further visits to Japan, educating large numbers, including about 400 top management.
1952-53 Advisor in Sampling Techniques to the High Commission for Germany.
1953 Lectured at University of Kiel and several other institutions in Germany.
1954 Cecilia Kilian became Dr Deming's secretary. Juran's first visit to Japan.
1954-55 Consultant to the Census of Mexico.
1956 Awarded Shewhart medal by ASQC.
1958 Awarded LL.D {honoris causa) by University of Wyoming.
1959-62 Consultant to the Central Statistical Office of Turkey.
I960 Decorated in the name of the Emperor of Japan with the Order of the Sacred Treasures, Second Class. Book: Sample Design in Business Research published.
1964 Visiting lecturer at London School of Economics and the University of Paris.
1968 Mugged in New York (stab-wound punctured lung).
1970-71 Consultant to the China Productivity Centre.
1972 Elected Most Distinguished Graduate from University of Wyoming.
1975 Became Professor Emeritus at New York University (but did not retire!).
1979 William E Conway's first meeting with Deming in March. Deming became consultant with Nashua.
1980 First four-day seminar given at Sheraton Tara Hotel, Nashua. Shewhart's 1931 book reprinted as 50th Anniversary Commemorative Reissue by ASQC. NBC-TV documentary: If Japan Can, Why Can't We?
1981 Became consultant with Ford (USA).
1982 Book: Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position1 published. W Edwards Deming Institute of New Zealand founded.
1983 Awarded Wilks Medal by American Statistical Association and Taylor Key Award by American Management Association. Elected to National Academy of Engineering. Conway left Nashua and set up Conway Quality Inc.
1985 First four-day seminar in London. Appointed Distinguished Professor at Columbia University. Biography: The Keys to Excellence by Nancy R Mann published.
1986 Enshrined into Engineering and Science Hall of Fame. Book: Out of the Crisis published. Mary Walton's book: The Deming Management Method and William W Scherkenbach's book: The Deming Route to Quality and Productivity Road Maps and Road Blocks published. Lola Deming died.
1987 Awarded the National Medal of Technology by President Reagan. Distinguished Engineering Alumnus Award from University of Colorado. First International Deming Users Group Conference in Ohio. British Deming Association founded. Howard S Gitlow and Shelly J Gitlow's book: The Deming Guide to Quality and Competitive Position published.
1988 Dr Deming became Honorary Life President of British Deming Association. First British Deming Association national conference. First Study Weekend with the British Deming Association's Research Committee at Ashridge Management College. Central ITV documentary: Doctor's Orders. First volumes of The Deming Library video series. Cecelia Kilian's book: The World of W Edwards Deming published.
1989 Association Francaise Edwards Deming founded, with Dr Deming speaking at the inaugural meeting.
1990 Dr Deming's first documents on "A System of Profound Knowledge". Suffered serious illness in summer and early autumn, but back in action well before the end of the year. Henry Neave's book: The Deming Dimension published.
1991 Rafael Aguayo's book: Dr Deming: The Man Who Taught The Japanese About Quality Mary Walton's second book: Deming Management at Work and William W Scherkenbach's second book: Deming's Road to Continual Improvement published.
I've added a space where people can sign up for the FA project. I note that you haven't yet signed. Was that an oversight or do you think it is a bad idea? Sunray15:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ps. If u come across other simple Quality control tools other than those listed under Category:Quality_control_tools, let me know :)
The Quality control tools category was originally organized to contain the 7 quality control tools (also known as "the old 7 QC tools"): control charts, flowcharts, check sheets, Pareto diagrams, cause and effect diagrams, histograms, and scatter diagrams. Some lists differ on which methods are included, including a run chart and excluding check sheets. Identifying these methods as "the 7 quality control tools" developed in Japan in the 1950s/1960s. "The 7 new quality control tools" (the 7 new QC tools) were added later creating the terms the 7 old QC tools and the 7 new QC tools. Lists of the 7 new tools sometimes differ in the methods included. The 7 new tools are: the affinity diagram (KJ method), the systematic diagram, the matrix diagram, matrix data analysis, the process decision program chart (PDPC), and the arrow diagram.
The Heijunka Box is an element of the Kanban signaling system (pull system) which is a key element of JIT. Elements of quality systems are not usually referred to as quality tools/methods. Leaders10016:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The most important insight about quality methods is that they were developed in the context of systemic usage. There are relationships between various methods. Lack of understanding the larger systems that each method is intended to be a part of leads to superficial application. Leaders10010:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re article Quality storyboard ... Sorry to have assumed PDCA was meant ... however I see the new correct link to Shewhart cycle takes us to an article which describes PDCA ... the diagram in the top right makes that clear ... is there really a difference between 'Check' and 'Study'?? I'm pretty ignorant about this stuff ... I'm just coming from the angle of a copyeditor looking for clarity and consistency. Stumps15:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stumps, Thank you for catching the PDSA article link. I did not notice that the link did not lead to the Shewhart cycle article. PDSA should have a redirect to PDCA, Shewhart cycle, Deming cycle. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know how to work with redirects. There is a difference between PDSA and PDCA. Study is used to maintain the original intent of Dr. Shewhart in the cycle being a learning method based on the Scientific Method. Check implies only that the desired results occurred and that potential learning may be overlooked. The origin of Shewhart's concept is in epistemology and the work of C. I. Lewis. Shewhart was presenting a theory of knowledge. The Shewhart cycle article doesn't cover these issues and needs some work. There are some issues on OR as the history of the differences has not had much coverage. Shewhart never used PDCA which seems to have originated in Japan in the 1950s/1960s. Shewhart did not use PDSA. Deming insisted on PDSA as opposed to PDCA to focus on Shewhart's original intent of learning. To add to the confusion some call the cycle the Deming cycle. Deming never used that term as he always called it the Shewhart cycle. Leaders10019:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we didn't get a huge response on our request for assistance on the Deming article. That's OK, but it will take longer. Especially since I've got some other stuff that I must work on right now. Let's keep in touch via the article talk page and try to keep moving the action plan forward. Sunray18:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think 12.156.192.131 may be a public IP (such as in a library or school), as opposed to being a single person, since they have indeed made both positive and negative edits. Should he or she continue blanking parts of articles (as in [1]), a {{test}} tag should be placed on the user's talk page. This assumes good faith that they are merely experimenting and not truly editing with bad intent. Their reaction (including further edits) should be monitored closely, to determine if administrator intervention is required. Normally, a "three strikes" rule is followed de facto in dealing with belligerent users. --Merovingian {TC@} 03:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to hear from you. I've been occupied in other parts of Wikipedia lately. You asked: "Leave the ones that might have an article someday and remove the rest? " Good approach, IMO. If (when) the article gets nominated for GA or FA, the remaining red links could be removed then.
I'm thinking that it is time to start condensing the main article and creating sub pages (#s 3 & 4 on the To Do list). Do you have time to work on that now? I have some time in the next few days but expect another assignment soon. We could pick one section and work on that then either one of us could continue that process until we have a nice tight article. What do you think? Sunray08:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could contact you when I am on for a block of time (just passing through right now, and should be working on a "real world" assignment). What are the best times for you? I'm on the west coast of NA (Pacfic time zone). Sunray19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have missed you the other day. I will be online for the next while and can work on the Demming article. Sunray22:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. I was looking at the article. It looks good, but it is up to 37 Kb. Do you have some thought about sections we might want to create as separate articles? Sunray23:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see what you are saying. However, take a look at the quotes section. Would this perhaps be better on Wikiquote? Sunray23:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted the references according to my understanding of the MoS. I wasn't able to do the links for authors names with this markup. Sunray00:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My guess: People looking for quotes by Demming.
We could pick a few of his most memorable quotes to include on the page and have a complete compendium on the new page. Sunray23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Esperanza To-Do List is a place where you may list any request, big or small, for assistance. If you need help with archiving your usertalk, for example, all you need to do is list it here and somebody will help you out. Likewise, if you need help with some area of editing on Wikipedia, list it here! Again, any matter, trivial or not, can be placed on this page. However, all matters listed on this page must not be of an argumentative nature. You do not need to be a member of Esperanza (or this program) to place or fulfill requests on this page. If you don't have any requests, consider coming by and fulfilling a few! This program has not been very active, but has lots of potential!
What's New?
In order to help proposed programs become specific enough to make into full-fledged programs, the In development section of the proposals page has been created. Proposals that are promising, but need to be organized in more detail are listed here. Please take a look at what is there, and help the proposals turn into programs.
To improve both the layout and text of the front page, in an attempt to clarify the image of Esperanza, the front page is going to have some redesigning take place. Please take your creative minds to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Front page redesign to brainstorm good ideas.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
In order to make sure all users who join Esperanza are welcomed, a list of volunteers who are willing to welcome new Esperanzians is at Wikipedia:Esperanza/Members#Esperanza_welcomers. Please add yourself if you are interested; we want to make sure all new Esperanza members are welcomed!
The In development section of the proposals page has been created.
Proposals page: Some proposals have been moved to the aforementioned "In development" section, some have been left as a proposal, and others have been archived. For those proposals that were a good idea but didn't necessarily constitute a program, General Esperanzial Actions has been created.
Two small pieces of charter reform will be decided on in a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Governance. One involves filling the position of any councillors who may leave, the other involves reforming the charter.
Until cooperation with the Kindness Campaign is better defined, it remains as a proposed program.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
What's New?
September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.
Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Brian L. Joiner and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Brian L. Joiner with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Brian L. Joiner.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Brian L. Joiner/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Brian L. Joiner saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! DavidCBryant13:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea how to contribute to Wikipedia except that I think I signed up for an account one time. I don't remember the details.
I would like to assist in further building the page on Myron Tribus. My name is Kammy Tribus and Myron is my father. As I am currently residing in his home I have a wonderful opportunity to assist in the accuracy of this page while continuing to learn more about Dad's most remarkable life.
I don't know who you are Leaders100 and don't know if we've met but my private email is lilith@datasync.com. Yikes! I hate leaving that text string here. Out in the open and all vulnerable to the evil bots of cyberspace. Once you have received this message, could you do two things for me? One is to let me know and the other is to strike my contact information from this post. After copying it down for your own use of course.
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.
In order to encourage more participation, and to help people find a specific area in which they are more able to help out, we have organized taskforces at WikiProject Japan. Please visit the Participants page and update the list with the taskforces in which you wish to participate. Links to all the taskforces are found at the top of the list of participants.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
But it's very interesting crap. I have spent the last half hour bumping around in your crap, and it's pretty interesting stuff. I plan to spend some more time in these links trying to eddyfy my evening. I started with some really great Flickr pix, then I got stuck in all this verbal stuff, and as I stated "I am stuck" so I suppose I'll wade around these verbal links for a while.
I have so many "handles" now in this electronic age, that I'm not certain how to sign in anymore, than I believe I can retail any anonymity. SRF: www.ForDesign.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.38.21 (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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) 08:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
