Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Good Article Collaboration of the week

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First time collaboration : Jesus

[edit]

What will we do if not many people show up for the collaboration efforts, I mean, I guess it's easy enough to improve articles when you've got like 8 or 10 people or even more helping out, but since the Good article wikiproject and this collaboration effort is so new, do we need to like wait a little longer or extend the deadline on improving the first article or two? If we only have a small group of people, like I think one guy sort of noted, not everyone is an expert or even remotely familiar with many types articles, with a small group of people, we might have a problem if we just start trying to blaze into articles on a one week deadline without a bit of extra time or more people that know something about different subjects. Homestarmy 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that if we work on an article instead of extending the voting deadline people might click on the article and take a look and perhaps see what we are about. I was also considering giving this being the first article that we are working on an extra day, but I think we should wait till the end of next week and we can decide what to do from there on in. Tarret 19:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
say, shouldn't there be something on this project page announcing to everyone what the current collaboration is? :/ Homestarmy 16:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind Homestarmy 17:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is the date it was supposed to be done, what do we do now? Im not even sure if anyone showed up from here to work on the article :/. Homestarmy 16:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We could wait till tomorrow and change it or we could change it today but I will let someone else decide that. Tarret 21:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well since apparently we've changed articles, shouldn't we at least nominate Jesus for FA status just to see what will happen? Homestarmy 03:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second collaboration : H5N1

[edit]

H5N1 is a subtype of the virus species Influenza A virus that causes a disease discussed here: Transmission and infection of H5N1 and is currently infecting birds worldwide as discussed here: Global spread of H5N1 and is a current pandemic threat as discussed here: Influenza pandemic as is summarized in the H5N1 box on the H5N1 article pages. WAS 4.250 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this and adding relevant data from it to the relevant H5N1 articles (listed above) in wikipedia would be a big help. I recommend reading it even if you don't add anything anywhere, as it is quite excellent. WAS 4.250 05:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have not helped, so far as I can tell, and we need help! Please help! WAS 4.250 07:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting with H5N1

[edit]

This is a great idea, but we got off to a bad start. I've been rejigging things, and getting us on the Community Portal. This should now gain a bit more trafic to the page. In light of this, I've turned back time, and reset us to H5N1 as the current GAC. The new template reflecting this has been changed, so it is more informative about the article selected.

The next GAC will be History of the Internet. By the current votes, the one following that will be Chlorine. --Barberio 21:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wish we could of gone back to Jesus, but I guess it's a good idea to try again heh. On H5N1, it has a non-closed FA nomination that only got a few votes but apparently was never closed.... Homestarmy 23:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the FAC was mistakenly handled or resubmitted. It's off the page now. I think it does deserve a return to FAC it its improved state. --Barberio 20:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

[edit]

I created Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week/current-short to be used instead of Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week/current in the left column of the community page. CG 05:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning---Poll

[edit]

How should failing nominations be pruned? The process originally read: "articles without support votes for long lengths of time will be pruned", which is too ambiguous. Please express your opinion here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I do not endorse the examples given; they are merely for format. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring x votes per y weeks (like the normal COTW)

[edit]
Example: # 3 votes per week. -- ~~~~
  1. 2 votes per week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prune nominations that have not received votes since x days ago

[edit]
Example: # Without votes for 7 days. -- ~~~~

Prune nominations that have not been selected x days since the original nomination

[edit]
Example: # Not selected for 28 days. -- ~~~~

Do not prune any nominations

[edit]
Example: # ~~~~

Other

[edit]
Object to the Poll. This is not WP:COTW, and is meant to be a more relaxed method. (Since the articles have already had work done on them) Nor is there any actual reason to explicitly state a time limit. WP:FAC uses the same vauge pruning, with their wording being "If enough time passes".
We do not need bureaucracy. --Barberio 09:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, there's not much objective without FAC....

[edit]

Other collaborations have FA status as their goal, and yea I know we aren't exactly a very good collaboration yet, (We haven't actually succeeded once yet) but "highest of standards" doesn't really give a clear cut objective. I don't think I know of a single other collaboration which has "Highest standards" as their objective. Homestarmy 12:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really say that FA status is a clear cut objective either these days. Many of the articles that get suggested for GACo will be articles that get automatic objections. ie, for being 'Current Events'. And I definatly do not want 'can this be Featured?' to be a requirment for GACo. --Barberio 14:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the problem with "Highest of standards" I would think is: cannot exist. By no means should you spend a lot of time worrying about how to make an article perfect. Perfection in general is an unachievable ideal. The joy of writing and editing is that perfection isn't required.
Since the refered to article actualy says this, I don't understand your objection. --Barberio 09:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least FA you have a goal which has a clear "you've succeeded" and "you haven't succeeded" sort of thing, I don't think people should mind too much about failure, I mean, we're barely doing anything right now as it is as far as I can tell :/. Homestarmy 14:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy, I noted a small peak in edits for both [H5N1], and [History of the Internet] after nomination. Since this is a new project, it's not seeing as much activity as the others yet. But, it's still very important to note that many of the articles that will be nominated here will have automatic rejection issues at FAC, so it's inapropriate to use FAC as the aim. --Barberio 09:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure we haven't nominated any yet for FAC, but I think Berlin might have a shot, we've paragraphified everything, plenty of pictures and content, I think the big question is whether or not the few resources at the bottom actually cover everything. (there's some books). We didn't have to actually force ourselves to nominate everything for FAC before, it was kind of open ended. As the collaboration gets more editors, all we'd have to do is just decide for ourselves whether we should nominate things for FAC or not at the end of the week. Homestarmy 12:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless we only allow articles which can be be Featured Articles, then we can't say becoming Featured Article is the aim. Since this would include barring articles such as H5N1, whose FAC is being objected to for that reason, I don't think it would be acceptable. I think we should stick to making Good Articles into Great Articles. --Barberio 12:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well can't we at least have the possible option written here of nominating them for FA status or something after the week is over? Homestarmy 13:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's allways an option for any article at any time. No need for any special mention of it. --Barberio 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An argument for the GACOTW template to be on the article page

[edit]

Just saw this comment from the Berlin talk page: Oh, did we make it to Good Article Collaboration of the Week? I totally missed that... sorry... I would have contributed if I had noticed! Angr (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC) It seems to me the previous argument of "It's too much clutter for the article space" apparently has a flaw where this "clutter" doesn't tell people that the GACOTW is happening to an article very well if its on the talk page. This theory that it is too much clutter also seems to not have consensus among most collaborations. I would like to note a list of other collaborations and/or project type things listed on the collaboration banner thing which do have their template on the article page: (and in the interest of fairness, note which ones do not)

Ones that do:
Ones that don't:

Based on this information, I think i'll make up a little theory of my own about Collaboration templates. I note that 8 out of 11 collaborations which have the templates on talk pages either have ambiguous or no rules, seem inactive, are very informal or do very little as part of some other project or something, or don't even have any templates. I further note that considering the large majority collaborations which have templates on the article page, that there does not seem to be any sort of drive or push to remove collaboration templates from the article page as "clutter", leading me to conclude that there is no literal policy guildeline against this "clutter", and that not many collaborations seem to be interested in having some unwritten rule on not having collaboration banners on the article page. Furthermore, based on the comment I saw on the Berlin article which made me do all this in the first place, I conclude that having the banner segregated to the talk page seems, statistically speaking, very disadvantagous for collaborations and appears to give no conceivable benefit over having it on the article itself. I shall summarize my argument for having the rules read to place the collaboration banner on the article pages as follows:

  • Most collaborations, including many general and sucessful ones, have the template placed on the article page.
  • Most collaborations which do not have the template on the article page seem to either have problems or issues, or have no templates at all.
  • The collaboration banner can't really be ignored very well if it is on the article space, thusly informing people that there is a collaboration going on and perhaps getting them interested in it. (Such as the commentor on the berlin talk page)
  • If the collaboration banner is out in front, some people may be interested in this collaboration, and may very well join our efforts beyond the current article, preventing us hopefully from sinking into inactivity. (Which we currently seem to be doing)
  • If the collaboration banner is out in front, some people may become interesting in the Good Article system, which dearly could use more hands already, as it still is relatively new and not a very accepted system, which more helpers could remedy.
  • The collaboration banner does not seem to of been complained about from any editors from the Jesus article, which was our first collaboration, rather, it seems the trouble started when we hit H5N1.
  • There is no rule anywhere against using templates to advertise for Wikipedia related projects on relevant and directly related pages.
  • The banner does not take away from the article, which by definition shouldn't be a Featured Article so there isn't really anything amazing to "clutter" in the first place, and certainly makes readers aware that the article is (hopefully) being actively improved, so that they might not come away thinking that the article in question is up to full Wikipedia standards.
  • The rules for this collaboration originally were for the template to be placed on the article page, apparently somebody intended for that to hold for some reason, which was perhaps a rather good one.

I think i've layed my case out quite thoroughly. Any questions? Homestarmy 17:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only wish people would actually read the guidlnes. People keep removing the AID tag from Jesus and other articles because they think it belongs on the talk page. I'm sure all of the above projects have had the same problem. Homestarmy is right, the GAC tag belongs on both the article page and the talk page. Ditto all the above projects. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 19:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well its not that people are violating the rules, its just that im arguing for the rule for this collaboration to change :/. Oh, and that reminds me of another point I can make.... Homestarmy 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everyone here so I will just put it on the main article and we will see what the people say about it. I also found this interesting fact from WP:CO.
General practice is to have the template marking the current collaboration at the top of the article in question while leaving the candidacy templates on the talk page. As talk page templates these candidacy ones should use the Coffee Roll format established at Template standardisation. Tarret 01:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really a fan of article space clutter, but it looks like I'm in the minority on this. --Barberio 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template on Article or Talk page?

[edit]

Oleg Alexandrov has raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:Collaborations of whether the template for the current winner of a collaboration should go on the article or the talk page. You might be interested in taking part. Pruneau 00:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuyvesant promoted

[edit]

Good job everyone Stuyvesant High School is our first GA collaboration article to be promoted. Tarret 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VI

[edit]

This one became an FA shortly after the collaboration ended, even though it was mostly the work of some person who went around improving all the FF articles in general, I think we still helped :/. Homestarmy 23:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography

[edit]

Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 05:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch College

[edit]

Why is the Collab only for two days?--HamedogTalk|@ 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote counts

[edit]

I think I should put vote counts, such as the "_ vote, stays until _____". Any objections? Green caterpillar 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we ever get the amount of nominations that the AID gets then we can consider using this pruning method but at the present we don't need to use it. Tarret 14:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning

[edit]

On the GACOTW, it says "Articles without support votes for long lengths of time will be pruned." How long is a long time? Should we set something like a time limit until articles are pruned? Green caterpillar 14:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of setting the time limit at about 2 weeks. I think I'll do it if no one objects in 5 days (September 8). Green caterpillar 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With only 10 articles on the list I don't think we need to prune the nominations as of now otherwise we might run out of articles eventually. I wouldn't mind if we start pruning the listwehen the list grows to 20 article though. Tarret 13:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please select a new topic

[edit]

I just noticed that the current collaboration, United States, is now listed as a good article. So, I think it is time to move on to a new collaboration. ike9898 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This collaboration seeks to make Good Articles adhere to the "highest of standards", which generally means make it an FA. Homestarmy 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GACOTW nomination rules

[edit]

I delisted Moon from the good article list a few days ago, so I was surprised to see it tagged as the GACOTW this week. I then noted that the GACOTW nomination rules had been changed a few hours after I delisted Moon. This change – to allow the consideration of delisted GAs – was made "to encourage more nominations". I looked for the discussion which resulted in this change, but could not locate it. So, being kind of new here, I was just wondering:

  • Can anyone change the rules regarding what's eligible for what sans discussion?
  • How does adding the 365 delisted GAs to a nomination pool of 1470 good articles materially encourage more nominations?

— Opelio 02:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder about this rather odd situation, I already made a comment on the Moon talk page, should we really have this conversation in two places at once? :/ And that random act of changing the rules wasn't something I ever knew about, I certainly wouldn't agree to it, some delisted GA's are delisted because their abysmal.... Homestarmy 02:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but there are many articles are delisted usually because they lack some small item such as references but they are otherwise good. I know that the moon article was delisted for more that references but the point of a collaboration is to improve articles. Now this is just a thought but I think we should wait the week out and see if this is worthwhile. After if this doesn't work out this week we can always change it back. Tarret 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, and besides, I sort of already stated heh. (If you can count changing a bunch of "m's" to "M's" a start...)Homestarmy 00:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Hawking was delisted all the way back in September, and still looks pretty un-broad, it would probably take very major changes just to make it a GA :/. Do we really have to keep trying this? Homestarmy 01:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just let it go for the week then after were going to slightly adjust the rule to only include articles that were delisted for minor problems such as references. Tarret 01:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De-listed GA's

[edit]

Should this collaboration allow de-listed GAs to be among the nominees? It seems like it would be worthwhile (in some cases) to bring articles back up to GA level. — RJH (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, seems fair to me, some of the articles that are delisted often just have some easy problem to fix... Homestarmy 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As said above it was like that for a short time but people were nominating articles with really major problems. However due to the low amount of nominees I think I'll change it back for the time being. Tarret 01:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request a collaboration?

[edit]

I have nominated Grameen Bank, co-winner of last years Nobel Peace Award, for a GA status. Hoping to get the attention it needs to become a GA (recent Nobel Winners deserve to become, I believe, at least GAs, if not FAs). Now, how do I get it listed for a GA collaboration? - Aditya Kabir 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC) - please, answer to my talk page[reply]

We're only taking GA's at the moment, so your article needs to pass the nomination first, though I have to say, lack of interest is sort of hurting the collaboration.... Homestarmy 19:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The collaboration as a whole? Or, just the Grameen Bank article? Can I help in any way? Please, let me know. I may have a lot of drawbacks as an editor, but lack of interest is not one of them. Aditya Kabir 04:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a collaboration that aims to improve articles to GA-status? I think the title of this collaboration is quite misleading in that respect.--DorisHノート 09:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for misunderstanding. It says - The intent of this collaboration is to polish the many good articles within Wikipedia, to bring them up to the highest standards expected of Wikipedia. So, I thought there may be space for a collaboration that aims to improve articles to GA-status. What does the collaboration do then? And, what should I do to take this article to a GA status? Aditya Kabir 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At first, the collaboration was specifically meant to raise GA's to FA's, but that was changed to just the "Highest of standards". Technically speaking, nominating your article for GA status wasn't really a bad idea, even though it might fail if it's not actually up to the standards, a reviewer will probably give criticism that will lead you in the right direction. Homestarmy 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess I need to know about the process here. Aditya Kabir 03:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

As a conclusion from the last thread, it springs to my mind to change the rules in this collaboration, and ask for the nomination of good B-class articles to be turned into Good articles. I believe the participation would increase, because the goal is easier to achieve. I am afraid the collaboration is going to die if we do not change something. What do other editors think?--DorisHノート 11:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha... I thought it was a thread, not a threat. Anyways, I get more typos than anyone else. And, you can count me in on this, if I count at all. Aditya Kabir 14:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, you need to separate task from the WP:COTW, which works on possible FA class material. Aditya Kabir 14:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Good article Criteria

[edit]

Hi everyone. A week or two ago, I started a proposed reworking of the criteria; the changes are not major, but there are enough to influence the review template and other things. Only three users have commented so far, and I feel more people should be involved in the discussion before the changes are implemented. Thanks. — Deckiller 00:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project templates go in talk space

[edit]

Found a good article collaboration tag in mainspace at Elvis Presley; just a reminder that Project tags go in talk space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when is Elvis going?

[edit]

For how many more weeks will Elvis be the "Good article Collaboration of the Week" ?Yamanbaiia 16:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this part of the project is nearly abandoned. Lara❤Love 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad, it was a good idea. Oh well, thanks for replying.Yamanbaiia 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this should be tagged historical, until such time as there is renewed interest? Homestarmy 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this whole project be removed from the community portal? Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_Article_Collaboration_of_the_week&oldid=1137414622"