Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:28, 11 March 2007

This page, a part of the Good article talk page collection, is archived by Werdnabot. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to go retrieve it. Current Archive location: Misplaced Pages talk:Good article candidates/Archive 5

Archives
18 March 2006 - 15 April 2006 15 April 2006 - June 3 2006 April - Jun 2006 Jun - Aug 2006 Sept 2006 - Present

GAnominee small=yes

It looks like the GAnominee is not aware of the small option, per Misplaced Pages:Talk page templates. Could this be addressed? I didn't want to make the change in case I'm stepping on toes. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually atricles are only nominiees for a short time (2-3 weeks) so as a tempory thing it is rather important, and probably shouldn't be squeezed into a small=yes type box... although that is only my opinion... --T-rex 19:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with T-rex. Quadzilla99 12:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet "small=yes" is supported by {{fac}}, which is also intended for short term usage... — RJH (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added the option. Nobody is forced to use it, but talk pages where some templates support the option and some don't are annoying. Kusma (討論) 18:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested recommended template name change

Why not change {{GANominee}} officially to its alternative, {{GAC}}, to match {{fac}} Wouldn't even need to move Template:GANominee, as there's already a redirect. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Homestarmy 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Just to let you know, {{GAquickfail}} has been nominated for deletion here. —Disavian (/_contribs) 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

When GA a review is not a review

When an editor has been heavily involved in an article or series of articles, that editor should not be involved in writing reviews, as it simply asserting that editor's opinion colored by the content disputes that editor has been involved with, rather than providing an objective e4valuation of an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

...Well, yes, it's alreadly in the rules that editors who signifigantly contribute to an article shouldn't review it, is there some particular problem you have with a reviewer? Homestarmy 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See Diff ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. In full honesty I made some consistent editing to Egyptian Invasion of Mani, that I passed, after if was put among the GAC by an editor, as I didn't see anything wrong on working with the grammar and formatting problems, since I did this after the article was candidated.--Aldux 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The article in question looks like WP:GA/R material to me, unless someone else gives a review that everyone is happy with. Homestarmy 23:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please clarify? I am not sure I understand what you said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that if the argument isn't resolved by a non-involved reviewer reviewing the article you're concerned about or doesn't make a decision you or other people can agree with, then you can file a Good Article review over this article to settle the dispute. Homestarmy 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Myrtle Avenue Line (surface)

Good morning (GMT time) all; the above article has been reviewed by myself and rejected GA status in accordance with the GA criteria, and as expressed at my original review. However, a lead editor of the article has been objecting to my review.

I have persevered for around 10 posts, as seen at User talk:Anthony cfc, but am getting nowhere. I would rather not frustrate the user any more (as well as myself :) so I'd like one of my fellow GA reviewers to re-review the case as soon as possible. This is as an alternative to seeking a GA Review, as the way the editor appears to see it my decision was ill-informed in the first place and therefore is not valid.

Kind regards,
anthonycfc 08:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this here. For others: I do not understand how the article does not meet the criteria. I would like an explanation, rather than just "it doesn't meet the criteria". --NE2 08:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I explained at Talk:Myrtle Avenue Line (surface), as well as at user talk:anthony cfc, but the user still seemed to require more information which I could not offer.

I also explained that the contributions already made were valued and they simply needed to be built on by accepting the advice at the article's talk page.

anthonycfc 08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The only advice you gave was "please review WP:GA? for the GA Criteria, and then work from there". --NE2 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm the review seems pretty short sighted "Improve it", "Make it better", "add more info", "Go to the library to get info" You need to be specific, what needs to be added? What needs to be improved? don't just say it needs improvement without giving any detail.

• (b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status. While pictures are not a requirement it will greatly improve the article - as this article has no infobox

For the author -

• Remove the red links from see also (no point linking to an article that doesn't exist)
• Remove the red link from that one reference - makes it ugly :|
• Only bold text in the first sentence one the first mention of the article name
• Is there some type of infobox this article could use?
• There is no point of having 'this article is X, for the person see X when the article doesn't exist.

It's easy to read but all the red links make it not very attractive, could some be reduced? An infobox or/and picture in the top right will pretty much make it formatted better and third paragraph under history is a bit choppy. M3tal H3ad 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I disagree with you about red links; these are all things that will have articles (including the one in the reference), and it is easier to include them now than to later, when the articles are written, try to find everywhere that should have had a link. I do only bold the first mention of each name; the names are similar but not identical. I do not believe there is an infobox for surface transit lines, only for railroad companies. --NE2 08:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is supposed to put at GA review, but since it's here, I'll leave a few comments. Although the article is well-sourced, it is lacking in some of the other areas. The lead does need to be expanded, but I could see how that could be difficult due to the lenghth of the article. I believe that the article needs to be expanded more with other sections of information, because it doesn't appear to cover the broad criteria. Examples could include a section about the models of buses, trolleys, etc. used, statistics if available about number of people who used it, any mention of its success or use by city officials, or any new technology that would adopted by other cities (these are possibly poor suggestions, but brainstorm or look to any similar articles for ideas). For images, maybe you can design a map of the streets yourself with some computer program and upload it, making it as visually appealing and accurate as possible. I believe by expanding and adding an image (although it is not the sole requirement) plus addressing any issues brought up by Anthonycfc could assist in getting the article to GA. However, at this point, I don't think it would pass. --Nehrams2020 08:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything else that could be added. Any information about the models of trolleys would fit in Brooklyn City Railroad, not here. --NE2 08:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of a See Also section is to link to other articles that exist on Misplaced Pages, hence the name "See Also" the user has nothing to see with red linked articles. M3tal H3ad 08:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The user will have something to see once those articles are written. On the other hand, if those links are removed, I will probably not remember to restore them when I write the articles. If it's a choice between making the article better in the long run and immediatism to meet what you think a Good Article should be, I know which one I'm going to choose. --NE2 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything else that could be added. Any information about the models of trolleys would fit in Brooklyn City Railroad, not here. --NE2 08:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article totally belongs at GA Review, but since it's not I will endorse failure here.

• Very narrow in coverage. The article is essentially a history of the routes the Myrtle Avenue line covered. Not a word about significance to the city, overall transportation system or even the borough of Brooklyn. (Note even close to passing criteria #3)

• Read WP:MOS, watch all the red links, either stub them or lose them.
• Combine refs, using <ref name=>
• Lose unnecessary bolding.
• Intro should conform to WP:LEAD.
• This article, all in all, is barely more than a stub.

IvoShandor 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments; I've decided to not care about Good Articles any more, and instead strive to be as good as possible rather than "dumbing down" to the Good Article criteria. Cheers. --NE2 08:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have to bring it up to the GA criteria ;) M3tal H3ad 08:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not when the criteria (or your interpretation of them) involve removing links. --NE2 09:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Although that is fair to do, the criteria is a fair example of what an article should be, and almost 2,000 articles have met its requirements. The reviewers here are always striving to compare the articles to the criteria, and from what I've seen, want to make sure that articles earn the GA status according to these criteria. Thanks for attempting the GA process and do consider it in the future, perhaps with other articles. --Nehrams2020 08:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but "dumbing down" your article, as you call it, would be happening how? As stated the article's coverage is too narrow. It talks about only one aspect of its topic and thus fails criteria number three. Feel free to resubmit when these concerns are met. There is no reason to storm off in a huff because the editors here want the article to be the best it can be and match up to the criteria before it is promoted to GA status. IvoShandor 09:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Also suggest reading WP:MOS-L. As overlinking can be very very distracting to the reader. Internal links should enhance the reader's experience not hinder it. IvoShandor 09:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)