Hello, Monowi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --AW 15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:90_Days_number_24.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 08:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing this article and your kind comments! I have an autographed photo coming in the mail. Could I use that image freely? Thanks again. RyguyMN 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of the awards/accomplishments section. Also, thanks for the helpful suggestions. I was able to do most of them, and will put in some more work when I have more time. I've been looking for a better photo for quite awhile, but have had no luck. Hopefully one will turn up at some point next season. StormXor 08:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the entry and the GA state. Your suggestions are great. I hope to incorporate them soon into the article. Happy holidays, Jimbonator (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Cardinals Care, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Cardinals Care seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Cardinals Care, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the article and the talk page, and declined the speedy based on your comments as well as my own trivial search for <"Cardinals Care"> on Google News which netted 470 results - quite good. However, I have added a {{primarysources}} template to the article because right now all the references are from the Cardinals' official site. Although the amount of coverage in Google News means that secondary sources (write-ups of Cardinals Care by parties that are unrelated to it) are likely to be easily found, I felt that I had to add it as a reminder to you, the primary editor. (Your passionate defence of the article on the talk page is another reason why I'm addressing this to you specifically, instead of on the article talk page. ;-) ) Regards, Pegasus«C¦T» 08:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cardinals Care, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Cardinals Care. Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input on Ryan Braun. Tough week, what with holiday travel, but I will do what I can to respond timely. Quick initial question. You suggested that we remove the Bold type from “The Hebrew Hammer” in the introduction paragraph, and instead place quotations around it. My understanding from the closest example I can find, under WP:NAMES, is that -- as with Slim Pickens -- bolding is appropriate here. If you have a better source for a closer analogy, I will be happy to change from bold to quotes as you suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your help. On the Ryan Braun article, I have either followed (in the vast majority of cases) or responded to (in a couple of instances) your suggestions. Thanks much for your time and consideration.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Tx. I added the authors to over 40 citations, and think that I have now satisfied all of your criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
Hello, I think that the requirements you pointed in this article's Good Article review have been addressed, thanks for your very complete review. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues".
During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help?
The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new.
This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings.
Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points.
The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't.
So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions:
Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article?
Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph?
Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting.
Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead?
If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section.
Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons.
Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion!
From the Editors
Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Thank you for the review, Monowi! I've taken your suggestions to heart, and will be using them before taking the next step — to featured status. Thanks again! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your review. I think I've addressed all of your concerns, but one; I'm having some troubles rewriting the lead, I'm not sure how to do it. Anyway, I'd like you to see if there's anything missing or that you'd like to see improved to have this article as a Good Article. Thanks. You can see the differences here: [1]--Serte[ Talk · Contrib ] 15:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk·contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk·contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Thanks for the compliment on the user name, Ghostbusters is great stuff. The stuff in there about Shandor is classic. Anyway, I am just returning to Wiki after a 5 month hiatus, I will put Ozzie at the top of my to-do list. I just happen to be a huge Ozzie Smith fan, he's my favorite player from when I was young. Still a big Cards fan. Hope I can help. IvoShandor (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole process may take me a couple days so you're welcome to address what you can in the meantime. I am through the "Trade" section thus far. I am copy editing as I go along as well as conducting a thorough peer review. IvoShandor (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review done, initial copy edit done. Have not edited or looked at the article's introduction yet. IvoShandor (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, of course. Thanks for the welcome back. I will be around for discussion and assistance about/with the article. You've done a good job with the article and don't be daunted by the review's length, it's not as much work as it looks like. :) IvoShandor (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:90daysnumber26.jpg[edit]
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I might be able to get you that article for free, I have access to ProQuest, I just have to update my login info with the university, I will do it in the next couple days. Then I can email the PDF article. Also, I can't stop listening to that 85 LCS home run call, it's my earliest baseball memory (besides a passing memory of the 84 Series), I will never forget where I was and what I was doing at the ripe old age of 6 when Ozzie hit that home run. Digression over, I should be able to get your article for you. :) IvoShandor (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't had a chance to look for this article as it involves me resetting up my account and downloading the software necessary to access the university's network, and I am kinda lazy on my days off. Sorry. I noticed you have been doing some work on Ozzie and making some notes on the peer review, I have them both watchlisted and have been checking in here and there periodically, things are looking good, looks like there probably some stuff left to do and look into but so is the nature of Wikipedia I suppose. When the article gets to a more "final" point I can look it over again and probably bring in some other outside eyes to take a look too. IvoShandor (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have still been monitoring the progress on Ozzie, and watching it too in case vandals strike and no one else notices. Keep up the good work. IvoShandor (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 4,050 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 227 total nominations, 16 are on hold, 14 are under review, and two are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (45), Sports and recreation (34), Music (18), Transport (15), World history (14), Politics and government (13), and Places (12).
Noble Story (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for April, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Noble Story joined Wikipedia on May 16, 2007. He is a big fan of the Houston Rockets, and edits many related articles, as well as articles on basketball in general. Congratulations to Noble Story (talk·contribs) on being April's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of April include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Topic
Do you know what a GA topic is? If you are not nodding your head, or don't know what I'm talking about, then you should pay attention to this article.
There are ten GA top-level topics (but you will spot the eleventh as this article goes along). These topics are: Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography and places, History, Engineering and technology, Mathematics, and Natural sciences. Each of these topics are further narrowed down to more specific topics. For example, Arts can be narrowed down to Art and architecture, Music, and Theatre, film and drama. But let's not get into sub-topics in this article because of its depth.
Now you will probably ask, "I already knew this, so what is your point?" What I want to illustrate is that some people often forget a step when they promote an article to GA. After they have posted their review in the article talk page, added the article name to the corresponding topic in the good article page, increased the GA count by 1, and added the {{GA}} to article talk page, many reviewers tend to forget to add the topic parameter in {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}}. You can browse the topic parameter abbreviations at on this page as well as what each top-level GA topic means, because sometimes it can be chaotic and confusing to pick a topic. For example, should On the Origin of Species be placed under the Natural Science topic (because it's related to evolution), or under the Language and Literature topic (because it is a book)? The correct answer is to place it under Language and literature topic, because its categorization as a proper title supercedes other categories.
Let's go back to the page that shows GA topics; does anyone spot the eleventh topic? Yes, Category:Good articles without topic parameter is the 11th topic, only it shouldn't be there. Articles that do not have a topic parameter in either {{GA}} or {{ArticleHistory}} will be placed in this category. The topic "Uncategorized" is not very informative, is it? So if you have time, you can consider cleaning up the articles that are left in this category and move them to the appropriate category by adding a topic parameter.
That's it for this month, I hope you learned a little from it.
GA Sweeps Update
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of April, a total of 26 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 15 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and two were delisted. There are currently six articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. One article was exempted from review because it was promoted to FA. Two articles were exempted from review because they were already delisted by another member in the community.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
...that different languages have different symbols representing GA? (Alemannic uses , Bavarian uses , Czech and French use , Estonian, Icelandic, and Swedish use , Esperanto and German use , Polish, Spanish, and Turkish use , Portuguese uses , Russian uses , Ukrainian uses )
Note: Lithuanian and Serbian have their own symbol but only uploaded locally. Other languages not listed above either have the same symbol as english or they don't have GA process.
From the Editors
There is currently a debate on adding a small green dot to the top right corner of all Good Articles that pass the criteria, similar to the small bronze star that is added to the top right corner of Featured Articles. Members of WikiProject Good Articles are encouraged to participate in the debate on this page.
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
This article I found, http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/news/2002/01/07/oz_hall/ , has a factbox on the side that lists Ozzie career rankings for Games Played, Double Plays, and Fielding % all at shortstop, which are missing from the statbox for career fielding on his page. But I'm hesitant to use the article as a reference because it's six years old and may no longer be correct, especially with a guy like Vizquel still playing. Do you think it's worth using? Timpcrk87 (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 4,266 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 157 unreviewed articles. Out of 215 total nominations, 44 are on hold, 13 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (31), Sports and recreation (31), Transport (24), Music (13), and Art and architecture (11)
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of May, a total of 82 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 71 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 11 were delisted. There are currently 15 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions.
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
Giggy (talk·contribs) (a.k.a. Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk·contribs)) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for May, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Giggy had a whopping 45 reviews during the month of May! Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of May include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
New GA Review Process - Review Subpages
In case you haven't noticed, we initiated a new process for GA Reviews at the end of last month. The {{GA nominee}} template was modified to direct new reviews initiated on an article to begin on a subpage of article talkspace (e.g. [[Talk:Article/GA#]], where '#' is the current number of GA reviews conducted for the article, incremented automatically, starting with 1). The primary reason for this change is to address some concerns made by several Wikipedians that previous GA reviews are not easily accessible in archives, the way that featured article reviews and peer reviews are, since the review is conducted on the article's talkspace, instead of in a subpage of the featured article space or peer review space. The reason we opted to move GA reviews to article talkspace (instead of GA space) is to better maintain the personal relationship between editor(s) and reviewer(s) by keeping reviews done in an area where editors can easily access it. Nonetheless, we still desired to have better archiving and maintenance of past reviews, so that GA ultimately becomes more accountable.
When an article is nominated, the nominator adds the template using a substitution, by adding {{subst:GAN|subtopic=<name of subtopic for article at GAN>}}, as well as lists the article (as usual) at WP:GAN in the appropriate category.
When a reviewer initiates a review of an article, all that needs to be done is to read the template on the article's {{GA nominee}} template on its talk page, and click on the link to start the review. When the reviewer clicks on that link, they will also see some instructions on how to start a review of a GAN. For new reviewers, there's also a link to the Good Article criteria, as well as to the Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles page and the mentors list. Once an article is reviewed, the GA review page should be transcluded onto the main article talk page, by adding {{Talk:Article/GA#}} to the bottom of the talk page. This is to ensure maintain the transparency of the GA process, as well as to make editors of the article in question aware that the review is taking place. When an article is either passed or failed, there's really nothing different to do in the process, although reviewers are encouraged to utilize the {{ArticleHistory}} template, linking to the GA review subpage with the 'action#link' parameter.
I'd like to withdraw my GA nom. There's too much for me to do by myself. I'll just keep the article updated. Thanks for the heads up though. --EndlessDan 12:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You said at Talk:Pacers-Pistons brawl, "In addition, small changes, like citing the Associated Press as the author in current reference #44, were done incorrectly; ESPN.com is no longer listed as the publisher of the article like it should be." I think I fixed the problem here, but could you please double-check to let me know? Thanks. Bash Kash (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I just nominated the article British Bangladeshi as Good Article, but there is no one to peer review with, because I am the only contributer to the article, so I was wondering whether you would view the article, there are no problems to the article and I think it is great so, please assess it to give a Good Article status, thanks! Moshin 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
In reply to your posts on wp:baseball talk, the article looks good. The only thing I believe should be worked on is the sourcing for the intro. Users do oppose for those reasons sometimes. Also, be careful about the post you made. The part about asking for support is borderline canvassing. Cheers.--LAAFan 21:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
Hi, thanks for your answer. I'll try to work on it.--Againme (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, si tienes un nivel intermedio de español I can help you with a native level whenever you need. --Againme (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, thanks for getting round to the GAC review, I'll get to the comments as soon as possible, and I guess I could ask someone for an overall copyedit. Cheers again. Sunderland06 (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted all of the GAC review comments, but I'm a bit unsure on a couple of them, I've left Comment next to the said comments, but they're pretty minor. Anyway, I'm in the process of getting a copyeditor, so thanks for the great review. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers a lot for the review, I look forward to working with you again. :) Sunderland06 (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize that I forgot to follow up on my promise to make some comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Ozzie Smith/archive3. I think it looks very good and made a few comments there (wanted to let you know in case you did not see)/ Sorry, Ruhrfisch><>°° 11:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Ozzie sidewalk.JPG)[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Ozzie sidewalk.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using
{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}
Thanks for the kind words. But really the project owes you more thanks than me. I've basically been a non-editor for about a year now, while you've managed to promote the Ozzie Smith article to FA (finally!) and are still continuing to work and edit. So really, thank you. While I may have started the project, your contributions have been a hundred times over more numerous and important than mine. I'm just pleased my small effort had lead to such big contributions by others. Timpcrk87 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a fuller message there. Please reply at your convenience.208.120.7.152 (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't perceive that we're operating at cross-purposes here, and I hope you won't either. Your most recent Musial edits all look fine and sensible to me. I've added references for both the "lost '48 home run" quotes... both originally come from books, so perhaps even better refs can be added later.
I wrote about my 8/5 edits to the intro in some detail on the Musial talk page (explanation on July 20, edits on August 5). I hope that will help illuminate their premises and reasoning, and I'd be happy to explain further if needed. The intro's two main problems (as I saw them) were its style (phraseology, copyediting), and its emphases (there was more space devoted to his sandlot ball, year in the Navy and year as GM than to Stan Musial the actual baseball player).
I doubt you're unhappy about the statistical information I added to the Musial intro. As for the other edits, many other players with lengthier and more significant WW2 absences than Musial's (e.g. Ted Williams, Warren Spahn, Bob Feller, et al) have Wiki intros that mention their military service in passing, or not at all. The same goes for virtually all players' pre-MLB careers, except where compellingly notable (e.g. Daisuke Matsuzaka, Lefty Grove). Going by the examples of other players' articles, the athletic activity of their youth is generally not considered intro-worthy material, particularly since that period of their life is typically the very next item in the full article.
I hope you will be reassured to learn that I've been editing Wikipedia for several years, albeit under anonymous IP addresses. My reasons for doing so are simple. I've seen far too many situations on this site that have turned nasty and personal, and feuds that extended past the point of original disagreement. Over the years, my provider has naturally rotated my IP address, which minimizes the possibility of longterm, one-on-one conflicts. Also, I have no interest in building a Wikipedia profile or reputation (aspiring to an admin slot, amassing article reviews, commendations, etc.). There's nothing wrong with those ambitions, of course. I just don't have 'em. Since official Wikipedia policy prohibits bias against contributions by anonymous editors, the only major drawback to anonymity is that I'm occasionally obliged to explain my status and history, as I'm doing right now. I'm always ready to interact and collaborate with any Wikipedia user.
If you're curious to see other baseball-related articles that I have substantially edited (in some cases, over 50% of the text is directly attributable to me), you can go to Spahn, Cy Young, Rickey Henderson, Phil Rizzuto, Pedro Martinez, Greg Maddux, and others. If you're really curious (or incredibly bored), you can investigate the edit history of Rickey Henderson's intro, before I was able to streamline the prose and shoehorn in a lot of competing information to the other editors' satisfaction. I hope these articles will be to your liking, will soothe any concerns you may have about my editing ability or intent, and will generally mesh with your ultimate goals for Stan Musial's page.208.120.7.152 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few edits for style, added a few references, restored a little text, and done some general polishing to the bottom half of Musial's page. Take a look when you get a chance. Thanks!208.120.7.152 (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Monowi-- Your paternal interest in my Wikipedia apprenticeship is misplaced. I've been editing Wikipedia for more than five years, and have never been unavailable to other editors. In fact, we're interacting right now! I understand that some editors prefer dealing with a username to an IP address, but I don't. What if I'd edited the page as "MusialFan1" instead of "208.120.7.152"? How would that have impacted your opinion of anything regarding this discussion?
You've cited WP:LEAD several times, Monowi. But many of your reversions haven't fit the criteria spelled out on that page. I'd appreciate if you took another look at it yourself. In particular, WP:LEAD instructs us to restrict introductory text to "concise overviews," "roughly reflect(ing) its importance to the topic." It also instructs us to "establish context."
Let's take "importance" first. WP:LEAD says the following-- "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic." Thus, the inclusion of Stan Musial's high school baseball days and uneventful year in the service are out of place in a Wikipedia intro. Ted Williams' five years as a military pilot are dealt with in 10 words in his Wiki intro, then detailed later. Bob Feller was the first player to enlist; his years of service aren't mentioned at all in his intro. Warren Spahn fought in the Battle of the Bulge; no intro mention. Yogi Berra landed at D-Day; no intro mention. Wiki bio after Wiki bio of the 500+ WW2-era baseball players follow the same pattern. Their leads omit this information, but you keep reinserting Stan Musial's time at the Philadelphia Navy Yard into the second paragraph. Is this according to WP:LEAD?
In a similar vein, other than your own Ozzie Smith text, I can find almost no examples of a prominent baseball player whose high school (and pre-high school) activity is highlighted in their Wikipedia introduction. David Clyde's intro emphasizes it, but that's because Clyde's fame is entirely predicated on the fact that he went directly to the major leagues from high school, and burned out doing so. Musial's fame doesn't derive from his teenaged years. Other than being switched from pitcher to hitter (which IS referenced in the intro), there's nothing unusual about his path to St. Louis. WP:LEAD states, "In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject." And Stan Musial isn't remembered by history or the public as a former sailor who once attended Donora High School.
Next, "context." Your current revert has taken valuable context out of the intro, notably his rankings in various offensive categories at the time of his retirement. Musial is currently 28th on the all-time HR list, for example, but increases in power numbers have radically changed MLB's leader boards. It adds perspective to the reader to note that in 1963, Musial was 5th. You've also removed the two quotes by his peers that attest to Musial's reputation within the game. For the second time, your edits have wiped those quotes entirely off the page. Meanwhile, your revised intro now mentions Musial's 1969 HoF election twice, along with double mentions for his nickname, and his World Series wins. You've called the result the "last revision that had a decent lead section," but I'd like to hear why.
No, I don't "happen to like Nate Colbert," but the fact that one of the only two players in baseball history to hit 5 HRs was physically at the other one's doubleheader is certainly worth a sentence-- Colbert's Wikipedia page mentions the coincidence in an identical manner. It has to be more notable than Musial's nondescript 2,957th career hit, for instance, or his hoping to get his 3,000th hit at home (like every milestone player ever), or a non-historic 1-for-15 stretch in a 10.900-at-bat career (e.g. Musial began 1955 hitting 3-for-19, and began 1956 hitting 2-for-15). Meanwhile, you oppose the much-reported two-baseball incident that has made its way into numerous baseball books and websites (and which you mistakenly said was unreferenced).
Other references you've deleted include the box scores for the pair of games in which Musial had the Cards' only hit. Surely these are more useful Wiki links than another Lansche ref; also, both of the dates you've reverted to are incorrect. A POV alert: Musial didn't "spoil" either of the no-hitters, since his hits were mid-game ones. You've also removed useful context from the article, such as where Musial's consecutive game streak stands historically, or the context and aftermath of the 1957 All-Star voting.
We know that it's common for Wiki's editors to take a proprietary interest in certain pages or topics. Yes, Wikipedia policy advises against it, but I don't think it's so bad when it's done in a positive way. So I appreciate your stewardship of the Stan Musial page. However, I left fairly lengthy explanations of my previous edits on both the Musial discussion page and your talk page, and I asked you directly for specific objections. That I should get a username and learn how to someday improve isn't exactly the fulsome reply I was anticipating.
Therefore, I'm again asking you to explain why you feel the particular, specific text that's come and gone in your edits should have come, and should have gone.
I won't make any further edits or re-reverts until we've come to some consensus. Your obvious seriousness of purpose and interest in improving Cardinal articles convinces me that we will.208.120.7.152 (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Monowi. You appear to be back on the site more frequently after a quieter stretch. I'd still appreciate a response to the above set of concerns, before I resume editing in accordance with WP:LEAD and other Featured Articles for baseball stars. It appears there have only been 8 of those (unless you count Jim Thorpe), and I'm sure we can work together to make this #9. Thanks a lot!208.120.6.244 (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I'd prefer not to interfere with the Good Article nom by making it "unstable" with edits, but you have not responded to my specific queries. Please do so. I assume you know that one of Wikipedia's behavorial guidelines is "Do not avoid questions." (WP:EQ) Thank you.208.120.152.75 (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I came upon this article recently and was just thinking about how close it was to FA/GA quality and I see you're working on exactly that! Seriously good work so far (and on Ozzie Smith). One thing, those stat tables really should get deleted per WP:NOT#STATS. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 01:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just letting you know this article is now on hold for GA status. Not much to fix, it's a very good article, though hopefully the fixes will take place quickly given how bad the backlog is. WizardmanHelp review good articles 19:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing this article. I have made some fixes to the article and left comments on the GAN page. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to review this article. It was unfortunate that your absence cut off the possibility of dialog during the review period, but I believe that the article has definitely improved as a result of the review. I have requested a Good Article Reassessment, which can be found at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bobby Kay/1. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.
This was closed before I was able to address your final concerns. However, I have changed the article as you suggested. Thank you very much for your time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy G. left you this message - Has there been an image review? If not, please locate an image reviewer...Modernist (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on November 17, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 17, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk·contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! TbhotchTalkC. 06:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ozzie Smith (born 1954) is a retired American professional baseball player who was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 2002. Nicknamed "The Wizard," Smith played shortstop for the San Diego Padres and St. Louis Cardinals in Major League Baseball, winning the National LeagueGold Glove Award for play at shortstop for 13 consecutive seasons. A 15-time All-Star, Smith accumulated 2,460 hits and 580 stolen bases during his career, and won the National League Silver Slugger Award as the best hitter at shortstop in 1987. Smith continued to earn Gold Gloves and All Star appearances on an annual basis until 1993, and later missed nearly three months of the 1995 season after undergoing shoulder surgery. After tension between Smith and his new manager Tony La Russa developed in 1996, Smith decided to retire at season's end, and subsequently had his uniform number (# 1) retired by the Cardinals. Smith served as host of the television show This Week in Baseball from 1997 to 1999, and continues to be an entrepreneur in a variety of business ventures. (more...)
WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Just thought I'd stop by and see how things are coming with this article. Hopefully I'll see it at GAN soon. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 03:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.
Thank you.
Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- TheHelpfulBot 16:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Bob Gibson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Northrup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.
If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012[edit]
There are currently 15,862 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 345 unreviewed articles. Out of 439 total nominations, 24 are on hold, 66 are under review, and 4 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article! Even just reviewing one will help!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Social sciences and society (80 articles), Sports and recreation (70 articles), Music (63 articles), Theatre, film and drama (52 articles), and History (41 articles). Please consider reviewing articles within these sections.
There are currently 13 articles up for reassessment at Good Article Reassessment. Please help out and go to WP:GAR and review an article! Remember that anyone can review articles that are listed under "Community Reassessment" even if another user has already listed their opinion...the more opinions, the better!
Member News
There are currently 222 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to all the new members that joined during the past 17 months! If you aren't yet part of WikiProject Good Articles and interested in joining WikiProject Good Articles, go here and add you name. Everyone is welcomed!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
If you haven't done so already, please remember to add your name to this list if you are still interested/active with this WikiProject. If you are no longer interested/active you don't need to add your name anywhere, you're name will be moved into a "inactive participant" list at the beginning of November. Inactive users will not receive future newsletters from this WikiProject via their talk page.
GA Task forces
There is currently not much going on at this time but there is a very large backlog. Until the next backlog elimination drive, please help reduce the number of nominations by reviewing articles and helping other reviewers that may need second opinions.
Thanks to everyone who committed some time to help reduce the nominations backlog during the June-July 2012 backlog elimination drive. Most barnstars have been given out but there are still a few left. Participants that haven't gotten a barnstar yet should get it soon.
Possible Fall/Winter 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive
A discussion is currently being held on the WikiProject's talk page on weather another eliminations drive should take place within the next few months as the last one proved to be extremely successful. Please take the time to go to the the talk page and include your opinion on if you would be interested in taking part in a Fall/Winter 2012 elimination drive.
Good Articles of the Month
Each month, 5 random good articles will be choose to be featured here as the good articles of the month.
Having references included in articles is one of the most important aspects to a good article, let alone Wikipedia! Without them, no one would ever know what is true and what is false and Wikipedia probably wouldn't be where it is today. So this month, I will talk about how to check for references, how reliable they are, and so on and so forth.
The first thing to do when reviewing an nominee is to do a quick scan of the article. One of the things to look for is if the article has references! If you don't see a list at the bottom of the article page, quick-fail it.[2] For newcomers, quick-failing is failing an article when you spot a problem before actually conducting a full review. If you do find a list of references (and in most cases you will) make sure to look through each and every one. If you want to save some time, use this tool as it will tell you if there are any problematic references in the article you are reviewing.
Next, check the reliability and type of the references/sources. In terms of the type of reference, check to see how many primary and/or secondary sources are included. Primary sources are the ones published by the subject of the article. For example, if the subject of the article has to do with the iPhone 4s and the source is published by Apple, it is considered a primary source. Secondary sources are those not published by the subject of the article (or in close relation to it). Newspapers are examples of secondary sources and considered one of the better types to include in the article (not saying primary sources are bad). If you find that most/all of the references are primary sources, notify the nominator about this issue(s) and place the article on hold once you have completed the review. Only in the event that a secondary source can't be found as a replacement, then the primary source can remain. If there is a good mix of primary and secondary sources, that is perfect and no references need to be changed.
Now, reliability. Forums are generally not considered reliable and some blog's may not be reliable either. Newspapers, most sources published by the subject, some blogs, etc. are considered reliable. If you don't know wether the source is reliable, ask for a second opinion. For more info about how to identify wether a reference is reliable or not, visit this article.
Finally, one of the more basic things to look for is that every statement in the article has at least one reference! The only case that a statement doesn't need a reference is when it is common sense that the statement is defiantly true and/or in the case where the statement can't be challenged, as per what Wikipedia says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."
From the Editor
After a long 18 month hiatus, the third volume of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter is here! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue of the newsletter here or on the editors talk page.
Also, Happy Halloween...in advance!!!
PLEASE READ: If you do not wish to receive future WikiProject Good Articles newsletter's on your talk page, please remove your self from this list. If you are viewing this newsletter from the WikiProject Good Articles page or on someone else's talk page and want to receive future newsletters on your talk page, please add your name to the list linked above.
^Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing.
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list.
→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Second Call)[edit]
You are reciving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the first message sent out in September, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The current deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. A third and final message will be sent out during the last week of the clean-up before the deadline. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)[edit]
You are receiving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the past two messages sent out in September and October, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. This will be the last message sent out before the deadline which is in 2 days. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 
Thanks for uploading File:Ozzie sidewalk.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). 
