Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 11

src: static.independent.co.uk

Video Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 11

Book Book of Mormon GA

I'm having a bit of a problem here. Someone is promoting this article to GA status without going through any process, wikiproyek or anything else. I changed it back, explaining that it needed to go through the process, but it was returned. What am I doing now? Wrad 21:11, September 20, 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP: GAR. Geometric Men 21:19, September 20, 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have a nice dialogue there now. Seems to be sorting out. Wrad 21:29, September 20, 2007 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 11

History of GA review evolution life

the page was nominated on August 27, 2007 and is already a month now; no one stands to review it. I started the article and added the entire content to the article. that means I can not check it. but I promise you that I will follow an unbiased approach in reviewing. if there is a problem, then next asked to review the article without hesitation. instead I ask you guys to review because I am waiting to move to another article. thank you, Sushant gupta 11:43, September 26, 2007 (UTC)

I will check it out. Give me today to start and until Friday to finish. I will post when I leave so any changes can be done while I continue to overcome them. Lara Love 12:23, September 26, 2007 (UTC )

src: interferencearchive.org

Comment

How about adding a nice article emblem to the top of every good article. such as Featured articles, they have a brown star at the top of the article. Ammar ( ^Talk - ^{Do not Speak} ) 10:03, October 2, 2007 (UTC)

There is much discussion on this topic, but there is no consensus on the matter. Homestarmy 14:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Homestarmy also basically covers important things, but I should add that these proposals should be discussed in the WikiProject Good Articles rather than here, as this is the wikiproek that oversees the GA program as a whole. Cash 18:11, October 2, 2007 (UTC)

GA, which anyone can promote, is not very suitable for such symbols. The possibility is to create a class between GA and FA (or use an existing A-class), which will be used by selecting on GA: s. Other Wikipedias (German, Swedish..) have two classes of sound. This class can use symbols, such as those owned by Wikipedia./Fred-J 17:46, October 10, 2007 (UTC)

What will be different from the FA, then? Tito xd ^{(?!? - cool)} 02:22, October 11, 2007 (UTC)

Lower requirements./Fred-J 15:57, October 11, 2007 (UTC)

We do not need any more classes. We've had too many. And of course we do not need another class that needs reviews, we already have more reviews than participation that can be followed in FA, GA, and PR. Lara ? Love 16:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think he said to add a class, just to add a symbol to the class. Wikipedia in another language has put the GA symbol in the corner (and they do not explode because of it, either: P). Wrad 16:18, October 11, 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is not as radical as Lara thinks. It's basically just GAs filtering, to sort out GAs that are not really GAs. A group of dedicated GA reviewers can go through recently promoted GASs and add GA symbols to them if they appear correctly reviewed.

Fred-J 16:15, October 23, 2007 (UTC)

We've done that. T Rex | talk 18:02, October 23, 2007 (UTC)

And expect to finish in 2012. OhanaUnited ^{Page talk} 18:13, October 23, 2007 (UTC)

src: bakerbloch.files.wordpress.com

The proper limit for GA review?

Hi, I recently took my first GA review, Harold Pinter, but I may have violated the proper etiquette and would have appreciated some pointers. My main criticism is that the article is written in complex sentences that are sometimes very difficult to decipher for a layman who does not have the background of a Pinter scholar. Unfortunately, the primary author is an old Pinter scholar who naturally finds his own transparent prose. We have worked in a mutually agreeable way from me clarifying some more complex constructions, and he checks that accuracy has not been ascertained. But we wonder if this violates the separation of reviews and editors, and does the other have to take over as GA reviewers? Fortunately, there's another one, Jay Henry, so this is a real possibility. Any advice would be greatly welcomed! Ã, :) Willow 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The GA guidelines only require reviewers not to edit many articles before they review them. After the review starts (either in WP: GAN or WP: GAR) it is not considered a conflict of interest to review and edit the article. Indeed, in my view, the more reviewers contribute to the article, the better, because the GA process is mainly about improving the article. One of the reasons why this is not a concern is that an uninvolved editor can remove the article if they believe the review is wrong. Geometry Men 20:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

src: 2.bp.blogspot.com

Split category

Will anyone object to sharing some of the larger top-level categories into smaller top-level categories? (eg: Splitting the "Media" section into "Movies" and "Television and journalism") - talk 20:01, October 2, 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Lara ? Love 16:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I like that specific example. What else is in your mind? Wrad 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

For another example, I think to separate recreation into "Sports and recreation" and "Computers and video games". If someone else has any more suggestions, feel free to say so. ^talk 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No place for Miscellaneous GA? This is the topic given when placing the GA tag passed but then when you come to add it to the list here, there is no place for it. Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) is an article and I can not find a cat currently where to place it/articles. Nevermind, I found the answer. - ALLSTAR ECHO 22:39, October 7, 2007 (UTC)

I think such sharing is a good idea. Note that any changes here must be matched with appropriate changes in WP: GAN. Geometry Men 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Further to this discussion, and below on Physics and Astronomy, there is now a workshop on current categorization, which aims specifically to align GA and WP1.0 lists. More details in WT: WGA. As for the "recreation" split, if there is no objection, I will do it in one or two days. Geometry Men 20:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

Good article in class

All good articles seem to be automatically categorized as GA-Class Good articles. How can a good article be categorized as an A-Class Good article instead? - Ilse @ 09:16, October 8, 2007 (UTC)

I think that category is only used for maintenance purposes by bot 1.0. Homestarmy 11:12, October 8, 2007 (UTC)

src: thinking.is.ed.ac.uk

Guyball

Anyone know what this should be categorized below? I've added it, but I'm really not sure where it should be. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H ₂ O) 09:26, October 23, 2007 (UTC)

I will put it under recreation because people actually play it. --Bloodzombie 15:21, October 23, 2007 (UTC)

Batman (1989) Batman (1989 film)

This article is promoted without going through the right process. I'm not sure how to fix it. Wrad 17:13, October 27, 2007 (UTC)

It passed after being examined almost a year ago. You can see the reviews here. If you believe you failed to meet the criteria, list the issues on the talk page and give them a week to fix. If you think there is too much trouble for it, put it on GAR unless it obviously fails on many aspects, in this case, just boldly delete it and leave a note. Lara ? Love 17:18, October 27, 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Then why would someone just add it on this page? Wrad 17:20, October 27, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe someone just found the AH template on another page and decided to add it. But everything is connected in the archive. Lara ? Love 17:21, October 27, 2007 (UTC)

It just disappointed me, because the reviews themselves have been archived and I can not see them. Oh well, glad I brought him here before doing something rash. Wrad 19:18, October 27, 2007 (UTC)

OK, there's a big confusion going on. Batman Begins NOT the same as Batman (1989 film). User: LaraLove passed BATMAN START and I am still reviewing the others. Today heavy editor Batman (film 1989) (User: Wildroot) gives the article and adds it to the GA list using sock puppets (User: lightbulbinspector, sockpuppetry proof in the user page history). He even left me a message on my talk page telling me that "other users" have reviewed the article for me. I open the list (that's why it's not on the list anymore but it's still in the "recent additions to list" box) and other users delete the GA tag from the talk page. I am still reviewing the article. Yamanbaiia 19:56, October 27, 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Everything is really suspicious to me, with new users adding articles to GA without any real reviews on the talk page. Yes, we are talking about something different from Batman Begins. Wrad 20:00, October 27, 2007 (UTC)

How the heck did I end up in Batman Begins from Batman (movie 1989)? It's not even late in the morning! I have to lose it. o.O I did not pass the article, however. It was passed back in the days of my IP editor. Lara ? Love 15:04, October 29, 2007 (UTC)

Users use fake links to evict us. T Rex | talk 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Keyboard

Should we tell them about the news that we have reached 3000? How does it work? Wrad 01:13, October 29, 2007 (UTC)

I think we did before when we reached 3,000 back a few months ago, but I do not think they mentioned it. I think because it happened before it may not mention it, but if you want to try it, leave a message on their end. --Nehrams2020 01:15, October 29, 2007 (UTC)

Uh, according to GA stats, 3000 is a new milestone. We reached 2000 in March, but not 3000. Cash 06:26, October 29, 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes you are right. I tried to find 3,000 figures everywhere in the archives, so I can now see why I'm not very successful. Thank you for correcting me. --Nehrams2020 06:48, October 29, 2007 (UTC)

According to editing history, it looks like 3,000 articles are New York State Route 9A, promoted to GA status by F 24 ^{(my radio!} _{editor reviews)} at 23:31 , October 28, 2007 (UTC). Dr Cash 06:46, October 29, 2007 (UTC)

src: lornamcampbell.org

Template: ContentReviewMedal alternative to GAMedal

People are talking about the need for awards for Peer Review, so I created Template: ContentReviewMedal. However, this is not just for homework; can be used for FA GA PR etc. --Ling.Nut 08:10, October 29, 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's great. I have the perfect use for it. Thank you, Ling.Nut. Beautiful work. Lara ? Love 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am ready to serve, ma'am. --Ling.Nut 14:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

GA quote argument

I believe I am one of the most prolific WP: GA writers. At last count I have 38 current GA credits plus two that have been promoted to WP: FA. For some time, I keep having WP: GAC in the queue for review. In October at a time I had 9 GAC, as shown here, in the queue. In October, I have at least 7 GA promotions: including Rush Street (Chicago), Ricky Powers, Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood), Chicago Marathon, Harold Washington Cultural Center, Haystacks (Monet), Prairie Avenue, and Rainbow/PUSH.

Last month I posted Gilbert Perreault on WP: GAR (see Wikipedia: Good_article_reassessment/Archive_31 # Gilbert_Perreault) because I felt it was destroyed by another editor who deleted the quote. GAR to consensus to keep articles with quotes replaced. Then, User: Geometry guy closed the discussion as inappropriate for GAR and suggested I take it to WP: RFC.

You may recall that I first took the article to the talk page of both WP: HOCKEY and WP: WPBIO without reply and then asked for help in WP: PR after lots of back and forth editing and arguing.

It amazes me that the RFC is heading for consensus to allow for the abolition of my quotes and basically authorizing people to remove quotes at will if they are in the mood as has been pointed out in the debate. However, in my opinion, I got bait in the debate mainly by User: Djasso which made it seem that I was doing something immoral. My most serious concern is that the way the debate goes, seems to legitimize the removal of quotes from WP: GA beyond what I believe is appropriate and I feel I have a good understanding of what is appropriate for a good article. Furthermore, the way the debate occurs, I will be handcuffed to sit. I'm very afraid that the people I'm arguing intend to break down those quotes from the GAs I donate and need the reserve so it does not happen. I have been thinking about my work in finding valued quotes, but I am not so sure.

I hope that other people here care about protecting good articles will help reverse the debate back in line with the direction it leads while in GAR. Please see Talk: Gilbert_Perreault # RFC.-- TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 08:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Repartitioning Physics and astronomy

The current structure is somewhat unreasonable. For example, extrasolar planets share the same subsection with some planets of the Solar System (SS) (Planet, dwarf planet and moon). But some SS bodies are in the Astronomical section now. I propose the opposite to divide Physics and astronomy into the following subsections:

• Astronomers and physicists
• Astronomy
• Extrasolar planets
• Physics
• Solar System
• Space missions, projects, and organizations
• Stars, constellations, and clusters

Ruslik 13:14, November 7, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the current structure is a bit awkward: I also like your idea of ​​moving organizations and projects together with missions. I will propose further to separate astronomy from cosmology and astrophysics, and incorporate constellations into astronomy. This will allow extrasolar planets (a rather special topic) to be combined with stars to provide something like...

• Astronomers and physicists
• Astronomy
• Astrophysics and cosmology
• Physics
• Solar System
• Organization, projects, and space missions
• Stars, galaxies, and extrasolar objects

Geometry Men 14:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Astrophysics is too broad. This is almost a synonym for Astronomy. I think the better variant is:

• Astronomers and physicists
• Astronomy
• Galaxy and cosmology
• Physics
• Solar System
• Organization, projects, and space missions
• Extrasolar stars and planets

Ruslik 19:32, November 11, 2007 (UTC)

I see that according to Wikipedia, astrophysics is a synonym for astronomy. This is not my impression as a layman or a mathematician/scientist: for me, "astrophysics" explicitly excludes the astronomical aspects relating to how we view the universe from our location on Earth. So constellations, telescopes, observatories, planetariums and heliocentrism are not part of astrophysics, but they are astronomical. That's the difference I'm trying to make: can you make it in a better way? Also, where is the extrasolar object like the nebula matching with your version? However, I am happy to go along with the views of the experts, and we seem to be pursed! Geometry Men 20:22, November 11, 2007 (UTC)

I say 'almost'. Even many articles can be classified either astronomy or astrophysics and this will be a source of confusion. Your second concern is actually valid, but the 'extrasolar object' sounds a bit strange, at least to me. So, last thing could be named like 'Milky Way galaxy' which means any object in it. - Predict unsigned comments added by Ruslik0 (talk o contribs) 10:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I think the main problem is agreeing on how to share those articles: we can get the right name afterward. Here we seem to disagree on two minor points: whether to group galaxies with stars or with cosmology, and whether to group things like telescopes with things like dark matter. I have gone to rearrange the articles along the lines we have suggested, and I realize that "the organization of space, projects and missions" is still very small, so why not share the "Observations of astronomy and space exploration" (or something like that)? Appropriate fission can be found in my user subpage. Geometry Men 17:47, November 12, 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just renamed 'Astronomy and cosmology' to 'Astronomy and astrophysics' and reclassified one article. Ruslik 08:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Newly implemented this new division. Ruslik 08:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your changes. So on this important issue ;-) we have a clear consensus among all (2) contributing editors. More seriously, many thanks for suggesting and implementing this reshuffle: this is a big improvement. Geometry Men 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

src: jech.bmj.com

European Islands

European islands have their own share in Good Articles Geography rather than being put in Places - Europe Is this useful or is that part too much? I have no opinion one way or another, I just want to see what other people think here. Lurker (word: Ã, Â · finished) 19:24, November 14, 2007 (UTC)

GA in AFD

For information, GA has been nominated for deletion. Please consider to comment on Wikipedia: Article for abolition/bill of iPhone 300 pages (second nomination). Dhaluza (talk) 17:39, November 18, 2007 (UTC)

Some articles are categorized as GA on the talk page, even when they are not

For example, see Talk: Ottoman Empire.-- ^space _research 06:20 , November 24, 2007 (UTC)

You mean project rank? If so, someone should change it, but not in Category: Wikipedia article is nice. Gimmetrow 06:29, November 24, 2007 (UTC)

puts places in brackets with birth or dead dates

.. quickly became my new pet peeve. This is verboten, see Wikipedia: Manual Style (date and number) #Dates of birth and death. For an example of GA (up to a few minutes ago) in violation of this fair rule, see Seymour H. Knox I... Thanks Ling.Nut (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The correct part?

I just passed the Mon Calamari cruiser and added it to the Television and journalism section because that's where the TIE fighter is. This does not seem right to me, does it? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the artefact of the recent "Media" split into "Film" and "Television and journalism". Most sections on "Character and fictional technology" may have to be moved to "Movies". Anime is also a movie form, and should be moved there, perhaps extending it to "Animation". Although the Manga can refer to the film, it's primarily a type of comic, and would be better placed under "literature" (indeed the Golden Boy (manga) is listed twice on GA pages).

In any case, the organization here needs a bit of rethinking: most films, and some television, are primarily creative arts, and will be much more at home if incorporated with "Theater" as a subtopic "Art ". Geometry Men 09:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, such steps require less work (changing the parameters of the topic), but I am happy to do so, and there seems to be no objection. Geometry Men 18: 1, December 1, 2007 (UTC)

Good?

Wow, so less than 0.2% good wikipedia article ??? - Unmarked comments previously added by 74.79.178.182 (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

By whose standards? GA is just a nominal thing. An article can be nice and not GA. Could also, although we try to avoid it, not good and still be GA. Good is a vague term. The correct way to say it is: 0.2% articles rated as GA quality. Wrad (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Jean Charles de Menezes

not a politician. Can someone more familiar with the categorization scheme suggest where this article should be listed? P4k 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The edition of December 2007 of the WikiProject Good Articles bulletin has been published. Comments are welcome for this, as well as advice or offer of assistance for January 2008 edition. Cash 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation: make GA less process-oriented

I do not know about anyone else, but the GA process is now so complicated that I can not understand it. It is easier to nominate an article for the FA than to find out the strange process of nomination/renomination/reassessments etc. Found in this project. Can not we simplify everything? For example, let's get rid of the reassessment page and allow the user to revoke the article with prejudice.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I do not understand the need for anything other than the nomination and review process, like the FA and like standing for a long time. Renomination can be handled only by relisting the article using a second opinion tag. Vassyana (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. The reassessment page has precedents; it's equivalent to WP: FAR. This is very valuable because it puts a few eyes on one article. Although it has evolved over time, it has served very worthwhile goals through its history. The whole process may be a little storied, but only slightly! It has become more complicated than its original incarnation because, over time, there are squeaky, aggressive, and painful arguments (which I think the two editors above are not there to be seen) about processes that are too simple and does not provide various options, warnings, etc. to a special editor of an article. I suggest that not difficult to understand ; I do not share opposite opinions. It might be a bit too tedious to apply (too many steps). Some talks automate or may eliminate some small steps in the process, but the statement that "too complicated" is unwarranted. Nuff says. Ling.Nut (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly comparable to the FA. The FA has two processes, nominations, and review. GA, as it stands, has five. An article has three list opportunities (nom review, second opinion, reassessment) and two for delisting (delisting reassessment, delisting "appeals" reassessment). Let's get back to basics. If the "appeals" process is really needed, nobody's asking for a second opinion can not be handled. I have completely failed to see the need for these layers of reassessment. I also do not see why removal can not be handled in the same way as nomination. Are a handful of small but vocal contributors annoying, whining and complaining when their "articles" fail or are deleted? Of course. But, there's no reason to make an extra layer and if they want a sound style review, they are welcome to bring the article to the FA. Vassyana (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You made a good case (a bit shorter than I did below!) and I've also been wondering if we can combine nominations for a nominated list for delisting in some way. On the other hand, GAR has proven useful in handling the assessment of controversial articles and articles on controversial topics. One advantage is that it involves editors with no special interest in articles, whereas GA reviewers often choose articles that interest them. Geometry Men 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, there is no process. Nominate them. If someone looks at it and gives it, then it is GA. If they fail, then fix the problem they noted. What is the problem??? --Jayron32 | talk | contribs 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's as simple as that, we will not have this discussion. Vassyana (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk: good article nomination or WT: WGA. This page is for discussion about the GA list itself. Ruslik (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Geometry Men 17:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, but it is here now, and copy/paste it elsewhere seems impractical. I added some comments. My strong initial object about the point of this thread is that the initial post suggests to eliminate WP: GAR. I see GAR as the most valuable part of the process.... G-Guy, you've won me to Autamation cause. Reviewers should do only one step (or maybe two, but that should be avoided if possible) to create articles from one to the next. Please do not comment one above: a required template that has yes/no ticks for "near GA" (unsuccessful article without putting On Hold, removing On Hold option) and for "just need ref", etc..? can article articles be automated? It does not need mind; just follow the mechanical process.... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• PS However steps that provide Fair Alert (such as GAR notifications on some talk pages) may not and should not be automatic, and should not be circumvented. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• PPS Back in the days when I was a programmer (surprise!), we will have a specially formatted file that installs the type of info used in the ArticleHist template. Think of comma separated files with headers etc as subpages of talking articles. One process automatically writes to that file (not the talk page); others read the file and write it to the template on the talk page. Both run independently. The worst thing that could happen is a one-day overlap, because only one is writing to the info file. Can it be done? Or does the bette way involve templates that transmit info from subpage? I do not know which one is relatively more evil: transclusions or automation... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• PPPS Or just use cat... one template to pass/fail GA with parameters like "nearpass = yes" to add to cat nearpass (to avoid the OnHold scenario) "refsonly = yes" add the cat to take care of just the need scenario ref; one cat to "pass" and automatic process to do all the cleaning... etc. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved the following comment interspersed in Geometry Guy's comment above. They broke the numbering, and made it hard to read. It might be useful to count them or add other backreferences, but I will leave them for Ling.Nut. Adding new comments among other people like this really should be avoided. --Ã, Carl (CBMÃ, Ã, Â · talk) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• (no) Yes, I really messed up the format. Sorry. I think I have now refactored correctly, including retaining Carl's comment.. The refactoring solution of Carl left my comments unattached and therefore impossible to faint. Ling.Nut (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I realize it will require more work, but I do not know how you want to fix it (by adding pointers, or refactoring in other ways). At that point, I referred some others to the comments, but the damaged numbering degraded its impact and made it difficult for me to point people to the latest version of the talk page. --Ã, Carl (CBMÃ, Ã, Â · talk) 05:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Of course automation will help, but there needs to be an accompanying change in the mindset, along the lines of kissing. The automation I have in mind is to auto-create the entire GAN page, so nobody needs to edit it: I've been thinking about this for some time now, and should be able to ask something concrete in the New Year. This is slightly different from the automation suggested by your comment. Geometry Men 09:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That list is really a bit horrible when someone sees it all at once. G'guy, you've convinced me about your automation proposal to generate GA pages (with small bookings about tracking). I wonder what happened with it... I'm glad to hear you did not save it;) EyeSerene ^TALK 15:45, December 10, 2007 (UTC)

Technology for some automation now operates in WP: PR. I am now asking if WP: GAN wants to adopt it. Geometry Men 00:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently-registered headers and articles

I find that some articles are misclassified. So I propose to move:

Ã, Completed 1) Apollo 11, International Space Station, Surveying Surveys Mars, Antariksaat Space Mission and STS-74 from current location in 'Engineering/Engineering Technologies' to' Physics and Astronomy/Astronomical Observations and space exploration '.

2) Space Shuttle Columbia disaster from its current location in 'Engineering/Engineering failures and Disasters' to 'Physics and astronomy/Observations of astronomy and space exploration'.

3) Flight Swissair 111 from its current location in 'Engineering/Engineering and Disaster Failure' to 'Air Transport/Transport'.

Ã, Completed 4) Surface tension from current location in 'Chemistry and materials science/Chemistry and Atom' to 'Physics and Astronomy/Physics'.

Ã, Completed 5) Optical fiber from current location in 'Chemistry and materials science/Materials science' to 'Engineering/Engineering Technology'.

Ã, Completed 6) Commercialization of renewable energy in Australia from its current location in 'Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy/Geology and geophysics' to 'Engineering/Engineering Technologies'.

Ã, Completed 7) Nature of diamond material from current location in 'Geology, geophysics, and mineralogy/Mineralogy' to 'Chemistry and materials science/Materials science'.

Ã, Completed 8) Wind power in South Australia from current location in 'Meteorology and atmospheric science/Wind and winter storms' to 'Engineering/Engineering Technologies'.

Ã, Completed 9) The dynamics of bicycles and motorcycles from current locations in 'Physics and Astronomy/Physics' to 'Engineering/Engineering Technologies'.

Ã, Finished 10) Liquid crystals from the current location in 'Physics and Astronomy/Physics' to 'Chemistry and materials science/Materials science'.

Ruslik (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally I agree: 1) Yes to all; 2) No, this is mainly due to technical failure; 3) Probably, although once again the notation stems from a technical failure; 4) Yes; 5) Yes; 6) Maybe, but I think the better place is 'Geography/Geography'; 7) Maybe yes; 8) Maybe yes; 9) Maybe yes; 10) Yes. There are some appraisal calls here, but as long as the topic of the GA talks page is parallel to the GA list, moving things around is not a big deal. Geometry Men 20:00, December 11, 2007 (UTC)

I see that Swissair Flight 111 is already registered in 'Transport/Air transport' so I removed the duplicates from 'Engineering/Engineering failures and Disasters'. The previous subsection contains another article about aviation accidents. As with wind power articles (and other renewable resources), I think it logical to include it in 'Engineering/Engineering Technologies' because this subsection already has some articles on renewable energy like solar power. Currently artilces about renewable energy are spread over several subsections. Ruslik (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree in general that we should be logical about our organization, and not spreading unnecessary articles. However, articles about renewable energy vary in their content, and sometimes need to be in a separate section. Above 8) clearly focuses on industry and technology, while 6) focuses on issues and politics. There is no reason why this should be in the same section. Geometry Men 10:26, December 12, 2007 (UTC)

It might make sense to create separate subsections for renewable energy? Ruslik (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just apply changes that are not being disputed. Ruslik (talk) 08:04, December 13, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I do not think a separate subdivision is required: 'Engineering/Engineering Technology' is a pretty good place for most of this article. I just want to suggest that Geography/Geography might be a better place for those not focused on technology. Geometry Men 14:33, December 15, 2007 (UTC)

I moved but Wind power in South Australia but still not convinced about the commercialization of renewable energy in Australia. 'Engineering/Engineering technology' already has an article on commercialization of renewable energy. So should it also be transferred to 'Geography/Geography'? Ruslik (talk) 08:35, December 16, 2007 (UTC)

I have moved an article that I think is human geography to that part. I also updated the talk page template for this and above. Geometry Men 14:52, December 16, 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this discussion is closed now. Ruslik (talk) 15:09, December 16, 2007 (UTC)

Movies

Why is the film listed with social science rather than with art? --Arctic Gnome (speaking o contribs) 01:12, December 13, 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that movies should be listed under Art. This problem has been raised here. More comments can be found here. Geometry Men 01:59, December 13, 2007 (UTC)

Movie and Television

Okay, here's the trouble. Movies, such as Theater, must necessarily be listed under Art rather than Social sciences, but what about television (and radio)? Some televisions, such as TV movies, TV dramas, soaps and sitcoms, are creative fiction that is very similar to a movie, and therefore must be listed under Art as well. Indeed, there is already subsubtopic on "Fictional characters and technology" which has examples from movies and television. On the other hand, television has a major role as a medium of communication, and this role appears to belong to journalism, under the media, in social science and society. Among non-fictional TV shows such as game events, problem-solving and documentary shows, which have a creative component, but also a cultural and/or journalistic component. It looks like I have three options.

1. List all the TVs under Social science and society, and live with artificial divisions between film-related fictions and TV-related fiction.
2. List some TVs with movies, under Art, but keep the rest under "media" in social and community science, and live with the fact that TV is not all in one place.
3. Create a list of all TVs under Art, and live with artificial divisions between print and TV journalism.

I am leaning to option 2, but drawing lines is difficult, and there is no perfect solution. I know it's not a big deal, but what do other people think? Geometry Men 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of comments, I will try to apply option 2, although it will not be easy to share TV articles. Geometry Men 21:55, December 29, 2007 (UTC)

This is now done. Geometry Men 14:11, January 6, 2008 (UTC)

3,296 GA?

I am wondering if the count has been slightly aligned by people who forgot to raise numbers when they add articles. I did a quick count just by transferring the text - from the Canon construction page to the Upsilon Andromedae d - to the word document and erasing all occurrences of "[[" (after first deleting each "[Image:", since this is just an icon). It gave me a total of 3,296 removals, while the official count (on 26 December) says 3,256. If anyone wants to double check, maybe I forgot something. Lampman (talk) 13:52, December 26, 2007 (UTC)

This will always be out of sync until the sweep is over because we never change # when we delete the article in a sweep. OhanaUnited ^{Page talk} 17 : 28, December 26, 2007 (UTC)

5000 milestones

I just noticed last week that the number of good and featured articles is over 5000. I believe that the milestone was passed on December 20th. It seems appropriate to celebrate this joint success in this good and harmonious season, so congratulations to everyone who has helped improve the quality of Wikipedia articles both by working on content, and through engagement in good and featured article projects! Cheers - Geometry Men 16:15, December 26, 2007 (UTC)

GA passes

Can someone finish the GA template in Talk: Europa (month). Sandy Georgia (Speak) 05:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sort order

Taking into account this summary of edits, entries are sorted by filtered form if they exist, or with links such as those provided. To avoid creating links like Reputation, Just to sort, any beginning "The", "A" or "An" are ignored, with the exception built for An Khe. A fair attempt is made to sort unicode: ÃÆ' â € ° Difice Price is by Ice. If there are quirks in sorting, say something. Gimmetrow 4:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter

Happy New Year! This is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Delisting without asking

Everyone is strongly encouraged to follow delisting guidelines. This guide helps to avoid situations like this. Geometry Men 21:53, January 4, 2008 (UTC)

While most of the time passed through GAR before it was deleted, we have quite a number of articles that are explicitly deleted. I discussed the history of the talk page and found that Argentina was nominated on April 26, 2006. [1] A day later, another user listed it as a good article. As one of the sweep participants, I can tell you that a large number of articles deleted by sweeps are listed as GA before mid 2006. Since mid 2006 a good article criterion was introduced, then all the articles listed before it are not checked every critiera, and any user may feel free to include it.

Go back to arguments that dare to remove this article, I will do the same. Right at the beginning of the article, there are tags for unverified claims. Half the page goes down and I found the tag "quote needed". In this article, there is a total tag of 10 "citations required". Each of these tags can fail quickly according to the fast-failing criteria. If every single GA that needs delisting should go to GAR it will be too opaque and burden GAR. Therefore, this delist makes sense. OhanaUnited ^{Page talk} 08 : 53, January 5, 2008 (UTC)

I hope people will not use the term "delist thick". Please help read the delisting guidelines. They do not say that articles should normally be deleted via GAR; just the opposite.

Source of the article : Wikipedia