Mark Arsten (talk | contribs) →Criteria 2 and hurricane GA passes: comment |
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) →Criteria 2 and hurricane GA passes: Sources checked. [Correcting my past edit summary, I mistakenly confused an edit conflict with removal of cmts; apologies to Aricorn] |
||
Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
*I've spotchecked four sources, noted on the GAR. I'm at a loss as to why a GAR had to be opened, since we could have done this quite easily with a talk page note. [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 02:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC) |
*I've spotchecked four sources, noted on the GAR. I'm at a loss as to why a GAR had to be opened, since we could have done this quite easily with a talk page note. [[User:Mark Arsten|Mark Arsten]] ([[User talk:Mark Arsten|talk]]) 02:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
*{{ec}} I have checked the sources and they appear to cover all the information attributed to them on the article. So, I guess this is enough proof to satisfy criteria 2. — [[User:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">'''ΛΧΣ'''</font>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<font color="#336699">'''21'''™</font>]] 02:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:11, 19 October 2012
October/November Backlog Elimination Drive?
The amount of articles currently nominated for GA status is awfully high and I want to propose the idea of starting another backlog elimination drive in a month or two. It will help the number of nominations stay low as the number of nom's is almost a 500. Anyone agree?--Dom497 (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea of another drive, as the number went way down as a result of the last one. However, there needs to be a better monitoring system this time, to avoid the types of inadequate reviews that took place in the June/July drive. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I could help with that. School might get in the way a few times but I should be able to take a look at reviews (I could of if I wanted to in the June/July drive but I didn't feel like it :P ) I will include a section in the October 2012 newsletter about weather users will want another drive.--Dom497 (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I was planning, along with Wizardman, to make the next drive in November or December, at the end of the period of classes and vacations. Although any recommendations and comments are very welcome. I am developing a lightweight and very productive system to enhance the monitoring system and get better results. We should also take this post at WT:GAN to see more feedback about it. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Side note: No one has given out the awards for the last drive. —Ed!(talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- A bunch have already been given out. People are busy so its hard to get them to everyone all at once.--Dom497 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Side note: No one has given out the awards for the last drive. —Ed!(talk) 17:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I was planning, along with Wizardman, to make the next drive in November or December, at the end of the period of classes and vacations. Although any recommendations and comments are very welcome. I am developing a lightweight and very productive system to enhance the monitoring system and get better results. We should also take this post at WT:GAN to see more feedback about it. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I could help with that. School might get in the way a few times but I should be able to take a look at reviews (I could of if I wanted to in the June/July drive but I didn't feel like it :P ) I will include a section in the October 2012 newsletter about weather users will want another drive.--Dom497 (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Support for a November/December 2012 drive, most users will be in vacation for the holidays, thus reviewers should be at a high rise during these times. Best, Jonatalk to me 23:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't know how things work internationally, but a December/January drive would work best for me to contribute. I don't think I would be able to during October or November. Zac 23:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I have never been a strong supporter of these, but always thought them generally harmless. That was until the last one. Some reviewers were conducting poor reviews and due to the drive they were being produced en mass. I would rather have a long queue and good reviews than a short queue with superficial reviews. Besides backlog drives accomplish very little in the scheme of things, a month later and we are back where we started. AIRcorn (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- So, several previous drives went off with minimal issues, but because one had some problems, you'd rather just scrap the entire idea? Resolute 00:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Some problems" is an understatement. We had a lot of drive-by reviews, where it wasn't clear that the reviewer read the article. When a drive causes more harm than it benefits the site, that's a huge issue. --Rschen7754 00:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- There were several articles that were short but contained all the info possible which only took a few minutes to read and approve everything. Not all articles have to take a few hours/days to review you know.--Dom497 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- As one who monitors road GANs (and many road articles are short), I still question whether some reviews of those articles were done properly. --Rschen7754 00:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Just curious, use this article as an example. I don't find anything wrong with the article. The refs are probably the only type you will find and the amount of info is a much as could be included.--Dom497 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I found some prose issues; repeated sentence beginnings, and an agreement issue. --Rschen7754 00:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Something I have learned at FAC: We all have different standards of what a good article (in this case) may be. Some may pass an article while others may cite prose issues on that very same article. What i believe must be the minimun level is the GA criteria; beyond that the reviewers can play with his/her personal taste and knowledge (at a limit, of course). — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- As one who monitors road GANs (and many road articles are short), I still question whether some reviews of those articles were done properly. --Rschen7754 00:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- There were several articles that were short but contained all the info possible which only took a few minutes to read and approve everything. Not all articles have to take a few hours/days to review you know.--Dom497 (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Basically what Rschen says. In my opinion the drive provides very limited benefit (actually I am not sure it provides any real benefit) and a few issues. After the last one I think the issues now outweigh the benefits and I have gone from being meh about these to actually opposing them. AIRcorn (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Given that the issues outweigh the benefits of the drives as they were conducted in the past, how can we change the way the drives are done so that 1) they reduce the backlog, something they have been successful at doing in the past, but 2) maintain high quality of reviews, which clearly didn't happen in the previous drive? Surely there are ways to amend incentive structures to keep quality up. The question is merely what those incentives should be, in my view. --Batard0 (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Some problems" is an understatement. We had a lot of drive-by reviews, where it wasn't clear that the reviewer read the article. When a drive causes more harm than it benefits the site, that's a huge issue. --Rschen7754 00:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- So, several previous drives went off with minimal issues, but because one had some problems, you'd rather just scrap the entire idea? Resolute 00:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Neutral If accepted. I'd gladly work as a coordinator with Wizardman again. Although, as i have moved to FAC and FLC now, i won't act as a reviewer like I did on the last one. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support unless a more practical alternative can be devised. There are flaws with the drives, but they're a necessary evil until we can find a way to sustainably keep the backlog in check. QPQ proposals (even optional ones) are routinely shot down, and it's unclear what other incentives we could create for people to review as much as they nominate - or just review in general. Some may be content to let the backlog build up indefinitely, but there's little point in having a GA process if it's so inefficient that some nominators wait three to four months to have their articles reviewed; if we let it run its natural course, some people will soon be waiting years. --Batard0 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm usually all for coordinating drives, but if one were do be done, the process would have to be overhauled, given how horribly the last one went. The backlog wasn't actually tapped into (people just reviewed six hour old episode articles), and we ended up with more problems than benefits. If I were to coordinate another one, I'd do a completely different format this time, try and take out superficial incentives to avoid poor reviews. Wizardman 13:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- What about a requirement that participating reviewers 1) pick articles from the top five unreviewed of any section and 2) awards are given based on the text size of the article plus the text size of the review (easy to calculate using the js plugin, must be calculated by the reviewer him/herself in Kb), thus rewarding amount of work done over number of reviews completed? This would encourage people to do more in-depth reviews instead of cursory reviews of low-hanging fruit. --Batard0 (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose unless substantial changes are made. "Programs that actively damage this project must be discontinued." --Rschen7754 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I will try to wokr out a new system and post here for feedback at a later time.--Dom497 (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)- Here's a few things I have in mind: Either discontinue barnstars or have them based on quality of review or something similar instead. We can still have a system where everyone posts their reviews but perhaps with them being used for something else instead of the raw numbers. We could also say that only articles at GAN before the drive began can count so that people aren't tackling 8 hour old ones. Just a few things I'm tossing out. Wizardman 19:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- You might even want to go further and say that articles must be at least 30 days old when their review starts in order to be eligible for credit, though there might be half credit for articles 15 to 29 days old when their review starts. The fancier barnstars could indeed go for high-quality reviews, with more basic ones to simple yet competent reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I completely agree. We can change the meaning of the barnstars and give them out as a discretionary reward for quality instead of quantity. Additionally, i think we should stay with the actual format of adding the reviews (which i designed). Also, i completely agree with only letting nominations posted before the drive to be eligible for credits, or, on a more quality-driven idea, been eligible for quality check. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Was thinking something along those lines too. My idea was to create a list of articles that have been queued for over 4-8 weeks (depending on how big we want the list to be). Participants cross off or mark reviews they are doing (maybe GA bot could do this automatically). The drive continues until all the listed articles are reviewed. I would guess that the older nominations will be less attractive to editors looking for a quick or easy review (usually why they are older). If they want co-ordinators can split and pre-watchlist the future reviews between them, that way if a poor review occurs it can hopefully be dealt with at the time instead of after-the-fact. This will focus the drive on clearing out the older nominations, which should really be its main aim. AIRcorn (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you AIRcorn. Completely. FWIW, i have this page: User:Hahc21/Fall_2012_GAN_Review_Round where all ideas can also be discussed and added. I have designed a new template to facilitate the addition of reviews with no issues with formatting. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- So I was thinking, what would happen if a review is found to be poorly? Yes, it wouldn't count towards a "point" in the rankings but is that it? Would it be worth sending it for reassessment?--Dom497 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here's another idea just to throw it out there: we could structure the incentives in the drive like a fundraiser, giving the same award to all participants if the drive reaches pre-defined targets. I.e. if the backlog gets reduced to X articles, everybody gets barnstar Y. If the oldest unreviewed article is also reduced to two months, everybody gets barnstar Z, etc. --Batard0 (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- So I was thinking, what would happen if a review is found to be poorly? Yes, it wouldn't count towards a "point" in the rankings but is that it? Would it be worth sending it for reassessment?--Dom497 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you AIRcorn. Completely. FWIW, i have this page: User:Hahc21/Fall_2012_GAN_Review_Round where all ideas can also be discussed and added. I have designed a new template to facilitate the addition of reviews with no issues with formatting. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- You might even want to go further and say that articles must be at least 30 days old when their review starts in order to be eligible for credit, though there might be half credit for articles 15 to 29 days old when their review starts. The fancier barnstars could indeed go for high-quality reviews, with more basic ones to simple yet competent reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a few things I have in mind: Either discontinue barnstars or have them based on quality of review or something similar instead. We can still have a system where everyone posts their reviews but perhaps with them being used for something else instead of the raw numbers. We could also say that only articles at GAN before the drive began can count so that people aren't tackling 8 hour old ones. Just a few things I'm tossing out. Wizardman 19:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support the format as was. However, if anything then we need to introduce a more fair-minded version: someone who will do several low-quality reviews will be disqualified from the process. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- As an alternative, instead of a drive as was formerly held, collect the projects more dedicated reviewers (I wouldn't call myself one, but would try to help) and do a mini push to clear away the oldest nominations in the queue. Though some method of incentivizing new reviewers would be a benefit. Perhaps instead of promising barnstars for doing reviews, the barnstars would go only to those who do quality reviews? Resolute 14:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Why aren't those signing up to this drive not simply doing more reviews now? Why try to make it into a competition? Malleus Fatuorum 22:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I like the drives because they are a group effort --I love seeing hundreds of articles get done and everyone getting involved. It's like a festival; it makes it more fun, less monotonous and gives extra incentive to work. --Tea with toast (話) 00:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I would prefer a December/January because I'll have more time during school break. --Tea with toast (話) 00:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support as long as the reviews aren't dodgy like last time. Till 00:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Delisting Good articles
I was hoping to get some clarification regarding delisting articles. Should all articles go through the reassessment process or can an editor instantly delist an article that they feel no longer meets the requirements. I personally think that all articles should go through at least an indiviual reassessment because our main aim is to keep GA status, if someone has taken the time to attempt to get an article to this stage then we should give them at least a chance to save it and it provides a record of what needs fixing in case someone else comes along and wants to get it back up to standard. AIRcorn (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This question is promted by a disagreement at Talk:Stargate (production team) where I reverted a delisting as no reassessment had been done. AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- An individual reassessment is basically another GAN. The reviewer is required to give a full review, but can hold it or fail it. --Rschen7754 07:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is a full review necessary or can an editor just bring up the criteria that the article fails. AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it depends. If it's really bad and obvious, there's no point in doing a full review, but you must provide some sort of rationale on a /GA2 page. Specifically, [1] is bad for the above reason; why was the article demoted? --Rschen7754 08:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I've looked at the WP:GAR page, and you are supposed to give the nominator/other people a chance to fix the article before it gets demoted. This was entirely out of process. --Rschen7754 08:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Then explain to me why the article history template states "If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment". Perhaps you should try assuming good faith first before providing unnecessary commentary. Till 08:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- WP:GAR takes precedence over what any template says. The template isn't maintained by the GA project. --Rschen7754 08:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Because this place is not perfect. If consensus is established here I will put in a request to change that template. AIRcorn (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Then explain to me why the article history template states "If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment". Perhaps you should try assuming good faith first before providing unnecessary commentary. Till 08:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, I've looked at the WP:GAR page, and you are supposed to give the nominator/other people a chance to fix the article before it gets demoted. This was entirely out of process. --Rschen7754 08:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it depends. If it's really bad and obvious, there's no point in doing a full review, but you must provide some sort of rationale on a /GA2 page. Specifically, [1] is bad for the above reason; why was the article demoted? --Rschen7754 08:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is a full review necessary or can an editor just bring up the criteria that the article fails. AIRcorn (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The idea of delisting articles immediately is because anyone can nominate and anyone can review, so it is possible that an article in very bad shape is approved by someone who misunderstood the criteria (a problem that is much less likely in FACs or class A reviews, which require many users). The immediate delisting should be used to fix those cases when they happen. Cambalachero (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's completely unacceptable to simply delist an article without leaving a review and allowing time for any issues to be fixed. Otherwise it's just anarchy. And where did you get the odd notion from that A-class reviews required "many users"? Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Those I've seen (mostly Milhist) do. I think the TV A-class reviews require many users too. The quality of these individual reviews, however, is a different question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Each project invents its own A-class review; there's no general requirement for anything. Malleus Fatuorum 04:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you know any that don't? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- WP:WIAACA says that absent a formal review process by a WikiProject, promotion to A-Class requires that "the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes." Getting back to the original topic, in the case of a promotion to GA clearly in error, an immediate delist is a valid option. I would generally hope that those delisting an article note why they are doing so. Just as we don't require all GAN reviews to placed on hold, even though many are, we should not require all individual GARs to have hold periods either. Imzadi 1979 → 05:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The issue isn't hold periods but the lack of a review with an explanation for the delisting. Malleus Fatuorum 05:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. As you said in your edit summary, even quickfails need review comments... just not necessarily in-depth ones. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The issue isn't hold periods but the lack of a review with an explanation for the delisting. Malleus Fatuorum 05:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- WP:WIAACA says that absent a formal review process by a WikiProject, promotion to A-Class requires that "the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes." Getting back to the original topic, in the case of a promotion to GA clearly in error, an immediate delist is a valid option. I would generally hope that those delisting an article note why they are doing so. Just as we don't require all GAN reviews to placed on hold, even though many are, we should not require all individual GARs to have hold periods either. Imzadi 1979 → 05:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you know any that don't? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Each project invents its own A-class review; there's no general requirement for anything. Malleus Fatuorum 04:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- At the very least a Talk:Article/GA# page needs to be created saying why the article was delisted. Otherwise the last comment in the article history will be that it passed GA. Unless there is a good reason (copyright violations springs to mind) they should at least be given a chance to fix them. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Of course that there has to be a review anyway, I was pointing that in such obvious cases the system would be "delist and left a review explaining", rather than "make a review and wait for other people to agree, which could take months, and the article stays good in the meantime" Cambalachero (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- At the very least a Talk:Article/GA# page needs to be created saying why the article was delisted. Otherwise the last comment in the article history will be that it passed GA. Unless there is a good reason (copyright violations springs to mind) they should at least be given a chance to fix them. AIRcorn (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Those I've seen (mostly Milhist) do. I think the TV A-class reviews require many users too. The quality of these individual reviews, however, is a different question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- The template actually hasn't been fixed, take a look here at an article I just passed as GA; it states the same thing as before: "it can be delisted or reassessed". Till 05:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
This project and the main page efforts
There are some people who want Good Articles on the main page. As a project, we should probably prepare for this in terms of thinking how it would be implemented and what if any policy changes should be done if this was to happen. Can some one possibly provide a table which shows the criteria for FA/ITN/DYK to appear on the main page and then criteria here could be developed based on existing projects to determine how it could be implemented here? --LauraHale (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Initial thoughts on implementing:
- GAs that appear would need approval by two reviewers who check the article against all criteria. Repeated failure to check against criteria would result in a loss of reviewing for main page inclusion privileges.
- Third person not involved with two reviews would have to send the article "up" to the main page.
- All existing criteria for GA kept.
- Articles that appeared at DYK, ITN or TFA are ineligible for main page GA appearances.
- No more than one article per area of GAN if a selection of articles is being included.
- GA articles that appear should be reviewed within 30 days of the article being nominated.
- GA articles should appear within 30 days of being elevated.
It would be nice to have some sort of GA portal where we could test out whatever system we designed for a trial period before implementing.--LauraHale (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is there currently consensus for the proposal? I haven't really been following it. Going off my TFA experience, you want to make sure that you don't put a whole bunch of articles of the same subject up, one after another. Also, at FA/POTD they do check for appropriateness for the Main Page; some articles are not appropriate because of subject matter. --Rschen7754 09:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- My alternative proposal would be that DYKs ought to meet the GA criteria, not the other way around, although admittedly that would lead to only about one DYK a week. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Just don't flood them and don't rush them. One a day with a decent queue so there is plenty of time to fix any problems. Having a Good article should not be an automatic right to main page representation. If it happens, it seems most likely it will be through the DYK process so it would be good to judge articles on the quality of the hook as well. I would also keep the process in this namespace as much as possible. AIRcorn (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- But the DYK criteria are somewhat at odds with the GA criteria; chalk and cheese really. Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping that there would be some separation between the new articles and the Good ones, even if they were both under the DYK format. However, this seems more likely to happen (42 supports to 29 opposes presently) than the alternative of a seperate space on the main page for Good articles. We can't do a hell of a lot about how the new content proponents run their ship, but if we are forced to climb aboard then we can at least keep ourselves afloat by making sure Good article submissions are the best possible. AIRcorn (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Problematic GA promotion
(IMO) in the GAN for the article on Malala Yousafzai. Contrary or confirmatory opinions welcome. Sasata (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- That should never have been promoted. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is precisely why people picking up articles minutes, hours, even a day after nominating pisses me off. Clearly work was still being done on it, even after the GA promotion stuff was added. Plus, any time no prose changes are noted I immediately get suspicious. Wizardman 02:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
GAN topic ban review
Please see WP:AN#GA ban. --Rschen7754 07:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Criteria 2 and hurricane GA passes
I've looked at a number of recently passes Good Articles about hurricanes/typhoons/tropical storms. Almost all of them appear to have been passed with out criteria 2 having been looked at. There are citations that are not complete, which means they cannot be verified. "Title." Agency. Date. is the sum total of the review for 1/4th to 1/2 the sources used in these articles. No url. No page numbers. Often no authors. When you search for the agency's website, you can find the story (with a url) or you can't find it. If it is the latter, there is a question of how this fact is verifiable. Beyond that, in one review I did, there were two instances where the source did not support the text. This is probably because the writer did not understand the source. But in any case, it means that the text doesn't support it. I'm considering doing WP:GARs on many of these recently elevated articles to address these problems. It is troubling that criteria 2 has been chucked out the window in favour of grammatical fixing that often comes down to wording preferences.--LauraHale (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hey Laura, i think it would be useful if you write here the links to all the hurricane articles recently passed, so we can check them too and make a community reasessment of them. I'd be willing to help. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Criteria 2 can not just be skipped. Who has been reviewing these articles? If the articles passed have obvious problems with the references, you should nominate for reassessment (just my opinion).--Dom497 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- If I may, nothing was skipped. All of those citations are from the news story database Lexis Nexis, and we have been using that for months. I offered to Laura (and I'll do the same for any other GA reviewer) to email a copy of the news stories. However, none of them are strictly online. None have a url that are part of that database. Furthermore, none have page numbers, because they weren't actually published in a paper, and many don't have authors because they're in parts of the world where the news stories don't contain authors! As I said to Laura before, if I got those stories from a local newspaper, would it be any different? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- If I may, Hurricanehink can say that these all came from Lexis Nexis, but the citations do not say that. How is a reviewer supposed to know if the article source is Lexis Nexis if the citations do not say that? How is a reviewer supposed to know Hurricanehink is using Lexis Nexis if the sources do not say that? The citations as written failed criteria two and the articles should not have been elevated. --LauraHale (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Check again, I changed it so that the citations do indicate they are from Lexis Nexis. I have offered to email those sources that I used, so that shouldn't be a problem. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- You've done this for other articles where there are incomplete citations? I don't want to be in e-mail contact with you. We can find a third party to verify these sources existing on Lexis Nexis, because I've checked Lexis Nexis and cannot find them. Once the citations have been fixed (with a preference for non-paywall sources and specific Lexis Nexis database referenced) , we can finish the fact checking part, the plagiarism check and then close the GAR. This clearly wasn't done, because Mark Arsten said he used your reputation as a reason not to do a full review.--LauraHale (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, for all of those 2002 Pacific typhoon articles, I added that they were from Lexis Nexis. If you refuse to get the copy of the articles that I had, then it's your fault. If you think I'm lying, you should just come out and say it, because I find this article witch hunt rather insulting. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did not accuse you of lying. Articles need to pass WP:V. The references as written did not pass WP:V because there was no way to verify them. WP:PAYWALL says "Verifiability in this context means that other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source." The references as written did not allow for that. Do you see my problem? And asking for spotchecks to verify sources is not me accusing you of being a liar; rather it is me saying an article should be checked against criteria. SandyGeorgia and NickiMaria are two authors I would doubt would ever plagiarise. Yet, when their articles have appeared where I review, I checked them for plagiarism and that sources supported the text anyway as that is an assessment criteria.--LauraHale (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, what do you want then? You don't want me to email the sources to validate them, you don't believe that the content I got from the sources back up what's in the article. I don't know what you want me to do. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did not accuse you of lying. Articles need to pass WP:V. The references as written did not pass WP:V because there was no way to verify them. WP:PAYWALL says "Verifiability in this context means that other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source." The references as written did not allow for that. Do you see my problem? And asking for spotchecks to verify sources is not me accusing you of being a liar; rather it is me saying an article should be checked against criteria. SandyGeorgia and NickiMaria are two authors I would doubt would ever plagiarise. Yet, when their articles have appeared where I review, I checked them for plagiarism and that sources supported the text anyway as that is an assessment criteria.--LauraHale (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, for all of those 2002 Pacific typhoon articles, I added that they were from Lexis Nexis. If you refuse to get the copy of the articles that I had, then it's your fault. If you think I'm lying, you should just come out and say it, because I find this article witch hunt rather insulting. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- You've done this for other articles where there are incomplete citations? I don't want to be in e-mail contact with you. We can find a third party to verify these sources existing on Lexis Nexis, because I've checked Lexis Nexis and cannot find them. Once the citations have been fixed (with a preference for non-paywall sources and specific Lexis Nexis database referenced) , we can finish the fact checking part, the plagiarism check and then close the GAR. This clearly wasn't done, because Mark Arsten said he used your reputation as a reason not to do a full review.--LauraHale (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Check again, I changed it so that the citations do indicate they are from Lexis Nexis. I have offered to email those sources that I used, so that shouldn't be a problem. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- If I may, Hurricanehink can say that these all came from Lexis Nexis, but the citations do not say that. How is a reviewer supposed to know if the article source is Lexis Nexis if the citations do not say that? How is a reviewer supposed to know Hurricanehink is using Lexis Nexis if the sources do not say that? The citations as written failed criteria two and the articles should not have been elevated. --LauraHale (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- If I may, nothing was skipped. All of those citations are from the news story database Lexis Nexis, and we have been using that for months. I offered to Laura (and I'll do the same for any other GA reviewer) to email a copy of the news stories. However, none of them are strictly online. None have a url that are part of that database. Furthermore, none have page numbers, because they weren't actually published in a paper, and many don't have authors because they're in parts of the world where the news stories don't contain authors! As I said to Laura before, if I got those stories from a local newspaper, would it be any different? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002) is obviously one that Laura is concerned about. Looking at that, I tend to support HurricaneHink's general explanation, with one caveat: I would add {{subscription required|via=Lexis Nexis}} to inform the reader/reviewer where the sources came from. Resolute 23:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! I figured there was some official template I could add, and I asked Laura before (who had a problem with another article), but never got an answer til now. I'll add that to various hurricane articles! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I reviewed Kammuri, so I do have a bias here, but I feel that Laura's complaints are frivolous and that mass GAR actions would be disruptive and WP:POINTY. This seems to be a case of FUTON bias, for the most part. Also, Hink raises good points in his post at 23:11 to explain the lack of page numbers and authornames. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I have to agree with Mark here. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- @ Hahc21, As a reviewer, how would you make sure the article satisfies criteria 2? People talk about WP:GAN being superior WP:DYK but the hurricane articles that I've seen systematically are being elevated at GAN with no one checking against criteria 2. Seriously, how would you have verified the facts for the article? You can't say Lexis Nexis, because you don't know the articles are there as the citations do not say so. --LauraHale (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, off-line sources are difficult to verify. Usually, the reviewer might check (if possible) the sources by itself. What i can consider a problem here is the lack of sufficient information to verify the sources, which Hurricanehink already solved. Also, he gave me a possibility: If the contributor has the physical sources at hand, he ca e-mail me a scan of them so that I can check the verifiability of the information. I've done that before at FAC and FLC. Hope this helps. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is the WP:Resource request and Wikipedia:Translation services. Also it is worth noting that not every fact has to be verified, only those that fall under "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". For difficult articles you can always google the statement (if it is notable enough to include and controversial then there are usually multiple mentions). At the end of the day some good faith is required, if the sources you do check are fine you can be more confident that the others you cannot easily access are fine. AIRcorn (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- @ Hahc21, As a reviewer, how would you make sure the article satisfies criteria 2? People talk about WP:GAN being superior WP:DYK but the hurricane articles that I've seen systematically are being elevated at GAN with no one checking against criteria 2. Seriously, how would you have verified the facts for the article? You can't say Lexis Nexis, because you don't know the articles are there as the citations do not say so. --LauraHale (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Mark, did you check the references per criteria two? How did you verify the information? I think a mass WP:GAR is called for here, unless the citations are made full. If the sources are Lexis Nexis, then they all need to say Lexis Nexis. Otherwise, they clearly are not verifiable. If Hurricanehink would review all his past GAs, fix them to include full citations to the specific lexis nexis database included in the citation (my Lexis Nexis is almost purely legal material), and some one with access to whatever specific Lexis Nexis database (which is cited) is used can review them to factual support of the article, than we can bypass that all and I'd be happy not to do GARs.--LauraHale (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Per above, I indicated they are from LN. They are as full as they can get. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, honestly, they are not. I've checked Lexis Nexis and they are not there. This means they failed verification. --LauraHale (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you said that you only had legal material in your LN, so they wouldn't, would they? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Lexis Nexis has a whole lot of products. Which one is to be used for verification on Lexis Nexis? Your citations, with Lexis Nexis only, are not verifiable. You need to list the specific product to make them WP:V. And your logic says, I should find it on Lexis. I have access to Lexis. I searched it and your sources didn't appear. Did I mention, the source is not verifiable if I go to Lexis and it doesn't exist? --LauraHale (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's Nexis® UK, which a fellow user has provided to get all of these articles. I'll ask again, do you just want me to email you these sources? I'm not going to paste it on Wiki because the material is copyrighted, but I could email, or a Google document if you want, or something. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- E-mail them to me and give me the articles I have to verify, so we can all end this please :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Seeing as I'll have to forward them, what's your email? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- E-mail them to me and give me the articles I have to verify, so we can all end this please :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's Nexis® UK, which a fellow user has provided to get all of these articles. I'll ask again, do you just want me to email you these sources? I'm not going to paste it on Wiki because the material is copyrighted, but I could email, or a Google document if you want, or something. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Lexis Nexis has a whole lot of products. Which one is to be used for verification on Lexis Nexis? Your citations, with Lexis Nexis only, are not verifiable. You need to list the specific product to make them WP:V. And your logic says, I should find it on Lexis. I have access to Lexis. I searched it and your sources didn't appear. Did I mention, the source is not verifiable if I go to Lexis and it doesn't exist? --LauraHale (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you said that you only had legal material in your LN, so they wouldn't, would they? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, honestly, they are not. I've checked Lexis Nexis and they are not there. This means they failed verification. --LauraHale (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Per above, I indicated they are from LN. They are as full as they can get. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I have to agree with Mark here. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've spotchecked four sources, noted on the GAR. I'm at a loss as to why a GAR had to be opened, since we could have done this quite easily with a talk page note. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have checked the sources and they appear to cover all the information attributed to them on the article. So, I guess this is enough proof to satisfy criteria 2. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)