Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ArchiveThis page, a part of the Good article talk page collection, is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to go retrieve it.
Current Archive location: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Archive 3

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles page.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] GA Reviewer Barnstar

This barnstar has been awarded "unofficially" for over a year, so I've made it official and added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject_awards/WikiProject#Awards_by_WikiProject. Hope this help push the cause forward! Best --Eustress (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Er...It doesn't look like a barnstar. It's more of a medal, if you ask me. bibliomaniac15 00:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June Newsletter

Any word of when the June newsletter is coming out? Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sort of waiting on that one too. Cheers! Cam (Chat) 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Cash, poke me if you're sick of delivering by hand. giggy (:O) 08:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delays in getting the newsletter out. My computer crashed this week, so things have been a little slow. I expect to get it out this weekend. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewing the technical articles

At present the articles are reviewed by volunteer wikipedians without any condition. I think in some cases the issues are completely technical and just an expert or somebody who is knowledgeable can judge correctly about them. While only one wikipedian review and judge about the article, it's better to use a knowledgeable wikipedian to do the task. Thus I suggest separating the technical issues and establish a technical review team, that is a group of wikipedians who are experts or knowledgable in some fields. We can also ask each wikiproject to introduce some knowledgable wikipedians.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, please compare the two reviews about Sources of Islamic law. The first one has done by somebody who says I am by no means an expert in any sort of law, let alone Islamic law, but I think that will give me a great "outsider" perspective[1]and the second one has done by somebody who says I'm a Muslim and review the lead from Islamic viewpoint[2]. As you can see these are completely different viewpoints and in some cases we need both of them.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This has been suggested several times before, including by me. The concept is fantastic and would most likely work. The problem is finding the experts willing to help. I've been out of this project for about 8 months (a message on my talk page led me here tonight), so I'm not sure what happened with my last few proposals, but if a page is created where experts can list themselves under their field of expertise and tandem reviewing can occur, I think that would help solve a lot of the problems GA faces with quality. Lara❤Love 07:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we can ask the wikipedians who are active in wikiprojects. I think in some wikiprojects such as Military history we can find several reviewer. In some others like Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology it may be difficult. But it's not a major problem, because few articles have been nominated which relate to such inactive wikiprojects.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Try voice your concerns at the reform page since that is where the centralized discussion of changes regarding GA happens there. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, please add your comments here.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Newsletter: June 2008

[edit] Destroyed village broadness

Greetings, recently another user and I thought about eventually nominating the article Bayt Jibrin for GA status. It needs a lot of organization, MoS fixes, copyeditting maybe some NPOV (haven't read entire article) and maybe some more images. But as far broadness is concerned, what would be required of a village depopulated in 1948? The article currently has a history section with four subsections for each era, a culture section mostly on embroidery and I'm planning to start a demographics and geography section. What else would be needed, keeping in mind the lack of sources for a village that was destroyed in 1948? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The city guidelines found in this wikiproject don't exactly cover "destroyed" or "depopulated" cities; they're mostly there for existing cities. That being said, if you're talking about a city that's no longer really populated, I would think you should be able to find information on its history, and the geography seems pretty standard. Not sure what you would say about demographics; maybe from a historical perspective of the types of people that used to live there? The city won't have any current infrastructure, obviously, and government/education/transportation is largely unnecessary. I would think mostly you're talking about a historical article here. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! A tad-more expansion and a lot more organization of the current history section (and the entire article really) and it will be nominated. I already added a geo section as well as a demographics section but the latter is only focusing on the village's population throughout its history and the number of refugees presently that came from the village. Maybe we could include something about which clans lived in there if we could find sources. But, as far as broadness is concerned, Bayt Jibrin meets that guideline, correct? --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)