Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5 FA Review

Great work! It will be easy to nominate FAs. I help as much as I can. NCursework 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Should we create a new subpage for Importance review? NCursework 20:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Reviewers
Who exactly can sign up to review these articles? Do you have to be an administrator, or have edited for a certain period of time? Runningonbrains 23:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. The only requirement is to be a fairly-neutral editor. Tito xd (?!?) 23:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just sign up here, and try to be impartial. Walkerma 01:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS, I'm not an admin. Walkerma 01:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We can certainly fix that. Tito xd (?!?) 02:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you meant that you're thinking of nominating me, thanks, but I'd actually rather not be an admin! I seem to be kept quite busy here without needing extra responsibilities, and I would probably be lost with all of the technology. Cheers, Walkerma 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Change in importance review
All you need to reject an article for importance is 3 votes, and if one reviewer disagrees, it passes, maybe excpect of having one person opposes, make it two that disagrees to make it fair both sides like what I did with the two scientists and Calvin and Hobbes as I agreed with Kirill Lokshin there. Any thoughts? Jaranda wat's sup 01:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that the whole point of setting this page up was to pass more FAs, not less. Kirill Lokshin 01:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, FWIW, I got edit-conflicted by Kirill, as I was about to disagree on both of those. Tito xd (?!?) 01:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

FAs to wait on
I've come across 1 FA that is under FAR, but I think it'll survive, so I'm waiting a bit. There's another, Kibbutz, that has a cite tag and a wikify section tab. I'm not sure what to do about that one. It probably should be under FAR, but isn't. Suggestions?Rlevse 03:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Place it on WP:FAR and cross it out on quality, like what I did with Dawson's Creek. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of disagrees
"If one reviewer disagrees, the article should be included in V0.5." - I think this number should be two. One disagree is not enough. NCursework 18:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with 2, that's what I been doing. Jaranda wat's sup 18:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * People seem to be missing the point a bit here... we shouldn't be trying to fail as many articles as we can. Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, no, the point is not the typical "inclusionism" or "deletionism" whatever the hell has been thrown around elsewhere; I think the point here is concensus. Nifboy 20:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

When to remove?
If a nominated article gets a disagree, then it can be removed from the nominations' list? How will we know if an article is nominated again that it'd already been voted to be included? I mean is there any archive page, or we don't have time for that? NCurse work 19:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe leave it there, with a note, or post it here with a note? Maurreen 03:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The system as written says that if an article gets one disagree then it can be included. This seems to have evolved somewhat - if there were a clear consensus (3 agrees, say) against including it, it might still get excluded - but in general we're only getting a couple of comments per article, so in that case it should be included in V0.5 with even one disagree.  If it IS added to V0.5, it should get the usual strikeout.  If it is NOT added to V0.5 on importance, then the policy states, After a total of three reviewers (including yourself) agree and sign that the article should not be included, strikeout the article name, using and and leave a comment such as "scope" or "importance". Does this answer your question? Walkerma 05:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't worry! :) We have a Version 0.5 FA Review/Archived nominations :) NCurse [[Image:Edu science.png|16px]]work 13:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But I still have a problem (sorry for that). Have a look at Biology section: some articles remained unstriked. Should now I move them to V0.5? Because as my list below shows, this sections seems to be ready. Or I have to wait until 31 of Aug, then move all remained articles to V0.5? NCurse work 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming you have already listed the obscure articles for importance discussion, you should be able to take a quick look at all of the remaining ones (without strikeouts) in the BioMed section fairly quickly and add them into WP1.0. Just check that there are no edit wars going on, major quality flaws.  You can do that today, if you wish. Thanks! Walkerma 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where we are now?

 * Art, architecture, and archaeology - undone
 * Awards and decorations - done
 * Biology and medicine - done
 * Business, economics, and finance - undone
 * Chemistry and mineralogy - done
 * Computing - undone
 * Culture and society - done
 * Education - done
 * Engineering and technology - undone
 * Food and drink - done
 * Geography and places - undone
 * Geology, geophysics, and meteorology - undone
 * History - undone
 * Language and linguistics - undone
 * Law - undone
 * Literature - undone just 5 left)
 * Mathematics - undone
 * Media - undone
 * Music - undone
 * Philosophy - undone
 * Physics and astronomy - undone
 * Politics and government - undone
 * Psychology - done
 * Religion and mysticism - undone
 * Royalty, nobility, and heraldry - undone
 * Sport and games - undone
 * Transport - undone
 * War - undone

Done means all of the important articles are included, undone means the review hasn't started or is under way. These are my opinions. Please feel free to change or comment. NCurse work 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Refreshed it. A section is Done, when every article in it is striked out. NCurse [[Image:Edu science.png|16px]]work 10:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein
I previously passed this article, but then went to the talk page and discovered that they are in the middle of a nasty edit war involving many aspects of the article. The article was even semi-protected. So i reverted my pass, and thought I'd wait on it. IMO, the article is still quite unstable, and this article should be held until it reaches some sort of stability. Runningonbrains 03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. It should be held. NCurse [[Image:Edu science.png|16px]]work 10:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Art, architecture, and archaeology
Now it seems every article in that section which is not striked out should be included. Please have an other look at that section and sign if you agree that I can include all of them.
 * 1) NCurse [[Image:Edu science.png|16px]]work 10:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance with the "War" section
I'm nearly done with going through the war section; hopefully I'll be completely done by the end of the week. There are three articles there, however, which I don't think I should be reviewing, owing to the fact that I wrote them:


 * Battle of Bicocca
 * Italian War of 1521
 * War of the League of Cambrai

I'd really appreciate it if someone else could read over those and make a decision. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 21:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kirill - How do these rate on importance? Clearly none of them are World War II, but if you (attach impartial head) say they are important enough I'd be happy to take a look at them.  Perhaps you could help me out a bit on Geography? Walkerma 02:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say they're important enough; but I'm obviously not the most impartial person here ;-)
 * I'll try to find some time to look at the Geography section. Kirill Lokshin 04:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm in the same situation as well in Geophysics; I'm almost done with Physics/astronomy, but I feel that I shouldn't review the rest of the meteorology articles due to a conflict of interest. Any help? Tito xd (?!?) 04:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the three FAs, they are very nice articles! To put them into context, I wonder if we should add in Italian Wars (is this now B?), Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (good B, poss A?), Francis I of France (B) and Henry VIII of England (FA).  This isn't as silly as it might sound - all three monarchs were giants of the Renaissance period anyway.  What do you think, Kirill and others? Meanwhile, I'll look over Geophysics soon. Walkerma 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Henry should make it in (through FA review); the other two monarchs might be passable, but they're not all that high-quality (being both terribly undercited and largely incomplete). The base Italian Wars article, meanwhile, is mostly a bunch of stub/skeleton sections that I put together for my own reference; it's definitely not a B-Class yet, and I doubt it would be useful to a reader who was not already quite familiar with the topic. Kirill Lokshin 03:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes in FA list
Is this project keeping up with changes in the FA list? Some here have been delisted, and of course others have been added. Gimmetrow 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For a while someone was updating our list, but that has stopped. I don't think it's such a problem, since the release versions are sort of slow-exposure snapshots (taken over 3 months or so), anything that gets missed this time should get into the next version.  As for FAs that have been delisted, all are reviewed before inclusion anyway (any problem FAs have been either rejected & FARCed or fixed).  Also, at publication time we have (thanks to Mathbot) the chance of easily checking the current version against the originally-assessed version (thanks to Mathbot) - with delisted FAs we would see the change, and flag it.  Just because an article is delisted doesn't mean it gets excluded, though, if it's not a fatal flaw.  If you are able to help us with the FA review process, we'd certainly appreciate any help you can give.  Thanks! Walkerma 18:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since nobody is reviewing a couple sections, I'll have a look at them. Many of the old FAs are not up to current FA standards on citations and referencing. Are those passing if otherwise well-written? Gimmetrow 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would either pass them or send them to FAR; if they're not bad enough for the latter, they'll probably do for the former, at this point. Kirill Lokshin 01:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the help! If they are on pretty important topics, you can pass them even if they're only B-Class, but if they are more marginal on importance, leave them out with a "fail on quality."  Thanks, Walkerma 02:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Question on Papal conclave - a delisted FA; I don't personally think it's important enough to offset quality issues, but I was involved in the FA review and could be biased. Gimmetrow 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's delisted, it no longer qualifies for this page. Maurreen 20:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So...
Can anyone deal with the "Importance review" section? I've commented on a few, and we need someone to actually decide what to do with them... Tito xd (?!?) 02:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll clear away some of these, so we can see what remains to be resolved. Thanks, Walkerma 03:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The importance reviews listed are all finished, bar one recent one. There are some articles that I in effect passed over (because of low importance) when reviewing, see my note under "Importance review" to understand this.  I want to complete this review, and I didn't want to spend hours of my time listing things article by article and waiting a month for votes to come in.  I was tougher on importance in this approach than I was when I did the more formal importance reviews, there are a few moderate-importance articles I ignored which could justifiably be in Version 0.5.

Removing sections
Would you mind if I remove the sections once reviewing is complete? The page is very long, and it I have to scroll down a lot to review the things at the bottom. I already removed the reviewer sign-up sections for completed sections. Eyu100(t 03:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe a sub-page for completed sections would be good. Andjam 03:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the sections now because nobody is objecting. Eyu100(t 21:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you remove them how will we add the new FAs? NCurse work 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, we'll fulfill it from the FA log. Agree, remove them. NCurse work 16:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. I like seeing a clear indication of progress.  Anyway, at this point we probably can't keep up with the log anyway!  Walkerma 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting passed FAs
It would look better and be easier to spot unreviewed FAs if the reviewed FAs were deleted. If you have any objections, post here. Also, revert my edits if you have an objection. Eyu100(t 01:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If we remove the included, reviewed ones, how we will keep up with the FA log? NCurse work 06:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Seperate page for passed FA's? Sounds like a reasonable solution...-Runningonbrains 14:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It would make the whole process more complicated. In my opinion, we could remove just the reviewd, done sections, not articles. NCurse work 15:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)