674:
weird around the edges and they're not political, so I'm wondering if pulling out one or two countries would be better (also open to say, political groupings like the EU). For Media and Music, those do some broad categories that could be split, assuming there are no very half-half director actors or similar. Lee
Vilenski's split on Association football seems sound, might have to take a closer look at stadiums. On the broad question of numbers, I generally look at it with an eye for somewhere between 20/25 (where it forms a clear paragraph-length chunk that shows it is a topic with clear work) and around 200 (where, depending on the length of individual entries, the block starts to get longer than laptop screen lengths).
2869:
2603:
whether the reviewers broadly agree, disagree, or cover separate ground altogether are all factors that determine this. When there is a fairly large number of relatively lengthy reviews that all largely agree on the main points, summarizing by theme is likely to be the best approach. Conversely, a low number of relatively brief reviews that focus on different aspects may be better summarized separately in the body (though the much briefer summary in the
183:
2684:
most of the source review, and just started on the prose review. I've found a lot of issues with prose as well but I'm not sure if that is just me being overly nitpicky. I'm also a little bit unsure of how to feel about the amount of technical information there is in the article. I don't know if this is the standard amount of technical info in a military article or if it needs to be toned down a bit here.
846:(ec) The EU doesn't include Switzerland, Norway, the UK, and some Balkan and eastern European countries, though that list will probably change over the next few years. I think geographical categories make more sense than political ones, as they are more stable. No strong opinion on UK/Ireland vs. continental Europe or Western vs. Eastern Europe, but I suspect the former is going to be easier to manage.
95:
141:
1876:
and Iâm really glad the coordinator suggested I got more experience first as I did need it. My proposal would be requiring people who are entering the GARC to have reviewed at least 5 GAs beforehand. 5 is kind of a random number so if anyone has other suggestions please let me know but I do feel implementing some form of restrictions may help with the future of GARCs.
160:
2723:
perhaps alert the IP of this if you do so. On technical information, it is best if the article is as accessible as possible, but it is not a problem for the GACR if some parts remain technical so long as it is relevant, and it's not that long an article. Perhaps look to make sure the lead is not technical.
2325:. I am not very familiar with FL, but looking at it, I think the same issues we have been discussing here will prevent it from passing. Please gain some more experience with Knowledge (XXG) and improve your writing skills before you review or nominate articles at FAC/FLC/GAN. I can see you are active in
2907:
opened the review at 17:15, and passed the article at 17:33, leaving not a single comment as to what was checked and what was found. If we accept a simple "passed" without any commentary, especially in a quick pass after less than a third of an hour to read and digest and check a substantial article,
2781:
I have in fact witnessed IPs not only nominate articles, but get them through the process successfully. It's very rare but I see no reason we should forbid it so long as we allow IP editing. IPs may change frequently but for most people they will consistently locate to the same area which makes it at
2106:
I agree that the process currently compromises on review quality. Still, we need more people reviewing, and this is a good incentive to try a first review. If they've got a mentor who will ensure a standard of quality, as an exception to the requirements, then I don't see why they should be excluded.
947:
If someone created an article on something Turkey (nation) related and it's placed in either Europe or Asia, the article will be reviewed swiftly either way. On the other hand, as someone *not* interested in
English/Irish/Isle related articles, I would be happy to more easily find the other articles.
132:
in general. To ask a question or start a discussion about the good article nomination process, click the Add topic link above. Please check and see if your question may already be answered; click the link to the
Frequently asked questions below or search the Archives below. If you are here to discuss
795:
On reflection, I'm not sure my concern about EU being more clear-cut is relevant anyway, since GAN doesn't really end up having acrimonious disputes about which categories ought to exist and what ought to be in them, at least not as far as I've seen. I do still prefer "British Isles" vs "Continental
2828:
however in the future if you are on the fence about failing something vs putting it on hold so improvements can be made i usually look at the nominators activity and history. if the nominator is very active, replies to your reviews and such then iâd lean more towards putting an article on hold. but
2722:
I don't see any problems with the review, the nominator seems responsive to your questions and suggestions. If the sources are out of place you could mention that, it is easy enough to duplicate them if needed. If you're feeling overly nitpicky, you can make minor spelling/grammar changes yourself,
2683:
a couple weeks ago and I honestly just need a fresh set of eyes here. So far my review has been a lot of back and forth between me and the nominator. My biggest concern here is that some of the citations aren't placed by the information they support which makes source reviweing very hard. I've done
1795:
To TheNuggeteer, I want to say I really hope you don't take this badly; I'm only saying that I believe you need to learn more about the GAN/article-writing process first before taking on a role like this. I also think for the benefit of GARC, proposed coordinators should have greater scrutiny (with
1599:
It seems like editors did not want to split along
Eastern/Western Europe and instead split out the countries of Britain, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, and smaller surrounding islands into their own category. What name should this category use? Some suggestions included: "Great Britain
1493:
After skimming through the list, I think an "other celebrities" category would be quite small. I think the least amount of overlap is to split off director from the others above, and then place biographies in the category that the person is most known for. If there is doubt, we can discuss it here.
1303:
Ah, my read is that we were only talking about geographical splits of "European history" not "historical figures". Given the disparities in coverage of global figures, going by date is probably easier to manage without further splits. Whether that's the most important criterion, I don't know that I
1167:
There was no objection to splitting "Road infrastructure: Midwestern United States" and "Performers, groups, composers, and other music-related people" in the way proposed above. I think this split can happen, and any help would be appreciated to make this split. If someone objects to splitting the
2487:
In some GANs (looking at books, in particular), the
Reception sections are written with dedicated paragraphs summarizing each reviewer in isolation, often with heavy quoting, and little to no attempt to connect themes with other reviews. Sometimes this is by necessity, say, if there are only three
1933:
I agree with that. I think any combination of five successful GANs and GA reviews (that were not quickfails; e.g. 2 successful nominations and 3 well-done reviews) is a reasonable standard to participate, so long as there aren't any other pressing issues. Imo coordinators should also scrutinize at
1918:
I wouldnât have an issue with this either however I do think they should demonstrate they know how to do a review which I donât know how else that could be demonstrated unless theyâve done a review in the past. We could also say either reviewed or nominated 5 GAs that way people who havenât done a
1875:
This may not be the best place to put this but since I was tagged here and itâs somewhat related to the topic I think it may be a good idea to put some restrictions in place at GARC to avoid newer editors from getting overwhelmed. When I first applied to be apart of the GARC I had only done 3 GARs
962:
I agree that "British Isles" by itself is a problematic name, especially to the Irish community. Some options could be "British Isles: England, Wales, Scotland, Northern
Ireland and Republic of Ireland" or "England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland". EU is not a great idea
2537:
I agree that this needs more attention, and I consider an unorganized assortment of opinions and quotes to fail the GA criteria. The majority of the time when reviewing an article about some piece of media, I have to ask the nominator to fix the reception section because it's a list of quotes. In
2602:
The best way to summarize the critical reception will vary from case to case. There are several dimensions to this. The number of reviews, the length of each individual review, the relative prominence of each reviewer in the relevant field, the type of work (e.g. fiction versus non-fiction), and
2583:
I agree that quotes should be used sparingly in reception sections and overuse of quotes in a reception section should be considered both an issue of copyright and poor prose. Even if there are few quotes, reception sections should also be somewhat organized or they risk not being clear (e.g. by
1682:
should step down from being a coordinator for the time being (at least until he is able to demonstrate better understanding of the GAN process). I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest he needs additional experience with
Knowledge (XXG) and the GAN process to become a coordinator for GARC.
673:
We've had some discussion on how to split historical/royal biographies and events before, but haven't found something that's convenient. Proposed split of
Midwestern United States sounds practical and within current practice. For the proposed split of political figures, continental divisions get
2646:
Summarizing a review that the reader is not able to access is helpful. It may not be the optimal approach, but it provides information they did not have and could not get on their own. There are of course better and worse ways of summarizing individual reviews, where a high reliance on verbatim
2632:
In the case of too-few-reviews, I don't think summarizing each review in depth offers any actual illumination for the reader. In an example with three reviews, summarized in depth and relying on quotes, it reads like book back cover blurbs (advertisements) or a review aggregator. I wouldn't say
1414:
If a sub-heading was used under
European history, the font would not be smaller than the headings we currently use, as the GA headings are already the smallest allowed. Also, I think it would be the only categories in GA with sub-categories. I would prefer "European history: United Kingdom and
731:
narrower scope than "European political figures": for example, the former would arguably only include
British political figures who were active between 1973 and 2020, whereas the latter would presumably include any British political figures ever. I can think of edge-cases for both options (are
1516:
Consensus seemed to be to put stadiums into "Association football events, matches, and concepts". There are still some stadiums listed in "Stadiums, public parks, and amusements". Should the status quo remain, where articles are listed in two different places, or should the stadiums be listed
2053:
In terms of my approach to GARC, I think to make them work at increasing the number of reviews, they should be frequent. I don't think newer reviewers should be excluded, as long as they are mentored in some way, i e. with a second pair of eyes looking over the review, which helps them with
1890:
Although it's not common, there are people who don't write much content but still have a good grasp of how to evaluate the GA criteria and review an article. I would have no issue with someone putting their first ever GAN up at GARC if they're already proven themselves a capable reviewer.
948:
The goal of these categories shouldnât be to find perfect ontologies but to make sure more niche content doesnât get drowned among the most popular candidates. I frequently check Business Economics, and Society related categories since my topics of interest frequently fit both. ~ đŚ
963:
because the countries in the EU are constantly changing, while the borders of Europe are pretty static. Also, EU politicians in the news are often still identified from the country they are from, and involved in that country's politics before, during and after being part of the EU.
2843:
I don't know where people get the idea that only passing reviews is worthwhile from. A successful review is a complete reviewâpass or fail, both help to improve the encyclopedia. It is not necessary to seek "community consensus" to do a basic element of the GA process.
2617:
exist to some extent in tension with each other and we have to exercise judgment in finding an appropriate compromise approach that does not go too far in one direction or the other. Reasonable people can disagree about the best course of action in any particular case.
529:
While going through the list of good articles, I noticed that there were some categories that are quite large. As more articles get promoted, some of these categories might benefit by being split up. This will help readers navigate these pages to find good articles.
2952:
I think we should give them a chance to respond, it doesn't have to be immediately delisted. The 40/50 people who view the page a day probably aren't going to have their experience changed much, and the article is certainly good given the nominator is Chiswick Chap.
1130:
After reading the above, I think there are some areas of consensus and some areas where additional comments might be helpful. I have split the discussions into level 3 headings for organisation purposes. Comments on all the discussions would be appreciated.
625:
Would editors be OK with initiating these splits? Should these names be used, or other ones? Should 300 be the target number in each category, or should another maximum number be used? Are the suggested divisions the best places to split these categories?
641:
imo, European history being separated into "British Isles" and "Continental Europe" will probably be easier than Eastern/Western. The borders of what is east and west are arguable. Whether something is in the British Isles or not is more clear-cut. --
2607:
might still be best presented thematically). I have used both approaches in different articles based on what seemed the most fitting to me in each case. We must remember that summarizing different reviewers' viewpoints collectively can also result in
659:
The main reason is that there is quite a bit of overlap between the seasons and events. These tend to be about the matches that the teams have had. Teams and stadium articles are much more higher level concepts and would fit neatly into one section.
1429:
Plenty of GA categories with sub-categories, off the top of my head the biggest offender is Biology. Using an explicit "other" category can work, although it does slightly complicate the simple hierarchical structure that can aid machine analysis.
2049:
I would like to comment on TheNuggeteer's reviews later, but in the meantime, would I be able to take over the coordinator position? I don't think I'm an exceptional reviewer by any means and don't have any GAs, but I have done a fair amount of
1532:
regardless of which category they're put in (i'd probably prefer putting them in with parks &c. but if there was consensus for putting them in with football articles then so be it), it should be consistent and they should all be together.
2522:
What is our general working expectation for GANs? Is it sufficient for GAN breadth and writing quality to plop summaries of each review without connection, or are editors expected to connect the reviews for a general audience when available?
1324:
For various categories, there was discussion on how Europe should be defined for the interest of categories. What countries should be included in a "Europe" category? Should a list of EU countries be used instead? For categories where the
2023:
Directed by VĂŠras Fawaz, a personal friend of Klein, the music video for "Europapa" was premiered live on De Avondshow met Arjen Lubach at 16:45 CET, followed by a release on the Eurovision Song Contest channel on YouTube ten minutes
1779:
advising him that he would need additional experience reviewing articles before participating in the GARC process. However, TheNuggeteer's GA review circles have included editors with dramatically less experience, which you can see
1952:
I would also be happy with this however I do agree that coordinators having to look over others reviews may add to the workload. I think itâs fair to just look over the users talk page to see if any concerns have been brought up.
1202:
I don't think there's anything wrong with considering splits at 200, if there is a logical division available, but perhaps we could make 300 the hard line. (Maybe the bot could be made to auto-post here to remind us to split?)
600:: (Political figures: North America) (Political figures: Europe) (Political figures: other). If others want it, we can have each region listed (South America, Africa, Asia, Oceania) though this might create small categories.
1267:
While the higher the number of articles the more a split becomes a good idea, I think we should consider as low as 200 if there are logical categories we can create. That would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
1146:
I have completed the split for the music articles. There will probably need to be another discussion to split the biographies, but I think that should be initiated once the concerns below have been resolved and acted upon.
1934:
least one of these to make sure they're good, but I also don't want to force volunteers to do more work if it's just going to create a backlog (it looks to me that both coordinators aren't as active as they used to be). ~
1013:
Oh indeed. I have no particular love for "British Isles" as the name of the category; my intent was simply to suggest that the continental divide is probably an easier and more relevant one to use than eastern/western. --
2434:
Way out of line. Surely there are better ways to motivate them to contribute more positively. This is clearly an enthusiastic editor doing their best to improve Knowledge (XXG), and these comments just turn editors away.
1456:
Some biographies have overlap between the proposed split to "Actors, models, performers, and celebrities" and "Directors". Should this split continue like this, or should this be split another way (or not split at all)?
772:
There's certainly a grey area as to where the line is drawn between "Political figures" and "Historical figures: politicians", but for what it's worth I see a few nineteenth century figures in the former category (e.g.
2633:
that's any greater breadth of prose or good writing than a single sentence for each. I haven't seen an example (including my own older GAs on books) in which a paragraph for each reviewer is a helpful review approach.
2091:
is a good program for mentoring new users. I think the process currently compromises on review quality, which is something that this project was setup to try and avoid. Adding requirements should hopefully solve this.
2612:
by making stronger or broader claims than is justified by the overall contents of all relevant sources. For this reason, I favour a comparatively conservative approach to doing so. This is an area where our different
2072:
Of course! Just as the others accept, I honestly don't want to be a coord anymore (hope the other coords don't take it badly). You have multitudes of experience reviewing GAN's, so you seem like a good candidate.
2241:, despite still having three unfinished reviews from the last few weeks. Between this, their noms, and their previous reviews, I don't believe this user is ready to participate in the GAN process quite yet.
2504:
1109:
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'd be in favor of dividing up the general rail transport category (213 articles). I think we could add categories for rail accidents and incidents plus rapid transit.
1789:
448:
2765:
Creating a GAN is all talkpage editing, so there isn't a technical mechanism to prevent IP nominations. As for the specific article, it was mostly written by an IP, so it might be the same individual.
1771:
As coordinator, his circles have also had significantly less scrutiny than the ones organized by other coordinators. To provide one example of contrast, one coordinator previously left a message on @
3099:
It should be fixed now, I think, but I'm not 100% sure. I thought it might have been related to a mistake I'd made on the talk page, so I tried blanking it and then restoring the content correctly.
869:
713:
Agree with both Vacant0 and CMD that "EU" is a better term than "Europe". Again, seems more clear cut. Unless someone can come up with some hypothetical edge cases that seem messier that way? --
2569:
quote-plopping, but I see enough people saying things like "any suitably sourced and reasonably complete article can be a GA" that I wonder if requiring "weaving" is overly ambitious for GA. --
898:
49:
2899:
had been opened for review and passed very quickly, which is unusual given that source checking is required these days and it takes time to read an entire article and check it for all the
2751:
I looked into this and apperantly unregistered users can nominate articles for GAs. I also was not aware that drive by noms were a thing/aren't allowed until after I started my review.
656:
Id probably change the split to Association football teams, events, and concepts: (Association football teams and stadiums) (Association football seasons, events, matches, and concepts)
2923:
They have not shown anywhere whether the article actually meets the six GA criteria. If the reviewer does not respond, the article should be delisted and put up for a review again.
1288:
Based on my reading of the discussion above, I think editors are more favourable to splitting "Historical figures: other" by geographic location, not time period. Is this accurate?
597:
533:
Listed below are my suggestions for splitting some categories. The goal was for each categories to have under 300 articles, an arbitrary number I picked because most categories at
1751:
549:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
2206:
which should probably be deleted. I don't think they have picked up any reviews since this was brought up here so I'm unsure if there remains an issue of needing to slow down.
1344:
On splitting Europe, there isn't a need to label the rest of Europe something else. We can put the British Isles (and other future splits) as a subheader of the Europe header.
545:) because I could not think of a place to split them that would make sense with the other categories in their grouping. Each suggested category is listed in separate brackets.
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
147:
3056:
Now passed again with an empty review form with a whole 191 characters of brief questions for the nominator (including the comment delimeters) left as hidden comments in
35:
977:
A geographical option is "Great Britain and Ireland"; "United Kingdom and Eire" could work as well, with "Continental Europe" probably the simplest option for the rest.
406:
402:
398:
394:
2175:
Bumping this, which still needs to be addressed. It's been said above that TheNuggeteer probably needs to hold off on reviewing for a while and take GAN more slowly.
607:
603:
542:
2008:
1572:
1557:
Agree, I think it's weird to put them in with sports and not public places, but I don't edit this kind of article so feel free to disregard my opinion on this. --
2647:
quotes tends towards the worse and writing about the overarching ideas in one's own words tends towards the better. The underlying problem is that we rarely have
1993:
I don't like saying this, but I don't think the editor should be reviewing GAs, and I have doubts about at least one of their articles that were promoted to GA.
2318:
1822:
But anyway, I don't feel like those quickfailed noms are recent (for me), and after, I have eight other successful reviews and 2 GAs, so I probably don't know.
1781:
2500:. In my experience, this also reduces heavy quoting, which pushes the boundaries of fair use paraphrase, even when attributed. It also requires more effort.
1329:
are separated from other European nations, what should the other European countries be referred to: Continental Europe, Mainland Europe, or something else?
84:
2488:
reviewers and there is little connection to the other reviews. But most often there are plenty of reviews and opportunities to engage with the guidance in
2489:
564:: (Historical figures: pre-1900s miscellaneous), (Historical figures: 1900s and 2000s miscellaneous). Another option is to separate by geographic location
758:, I thought of Eden's case (not him specifically, but that kind of person), but isn't he supposed to be in "Historical figures - politicians" anyway? --
2326:
619:
615:
585:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
736:, who retired from active politics before Britain joined the EU, but lived for nearly 30 years after, an EU political figure? What about someone like
740:, who was still in the House of Lords until he died in 1977, but was essentially politically irrelevant after he resigned as prime minister in 1957?)
558:: (Historical figures: pre-1900s politicians) (Historical figures: 1900s and 2000s politicians). Another option is to separate by geograhpic location.
2609:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
999:
If using Ăire, make sure to write it as I have. Also, I recommend not using the term 'British Isles': Great Britain and Ireland will offend no one
442:
438:
63:
2896:
2375:
2737:
I wasn't aware that we allow GA nominations from unregistered users. How can their contributions be measured to ensure they're not 'drive by?
77:
2007:
I think I have to agree. I have seen a marked improvement in their quality of reviews, but I did spend some time co-reviewing a few articles
1615:
Great Britain and Ireland is probably the most neutral (as opposed to "British Isles") and more COMMONNAME-y than "United Kingdom and Ăire".
606:: (Association football teams, seasons, and stadiums) (Association football events, matches, and concepts). Some stadiums are also listed in
125:
42:
2825:
based off a quick look at the article it seems like there are several unsourced portions which means that it would qualify as a quick fail.
2275:. If you don't care so much about that, you can just comment that you'll be taking over per this conversation, and add comments from there.
1785:
1187:
In the above, I proposed splits for categories over 300 articles. Another editor suggested 200. What is the ideal number in each category?
990:
859:
2614:
2088:
570:: (Eastern European history) (Western European history). Other option is (British Isles and Irish history) and (Mainland-European history)
56:
688:
I'd support the Historical figures and Political figures splits and would prefer both of them to be grouped by location (NA, Eu, Other).
2238:
986:
855:
2383:
2810:
as fail, I don't know what to do. Since reviewing, I have found multiple issues, and I don't know if I have to close this as a fail.
1670:'s talk page at first, but having read through it, I think it should be posted somewhere with greater visibility. I may be pinging @
579:
573:
567:
561:
555:
538:
28:
745:
2496:
to understand the holistic reception. The latter, to me, is the minimum quality bar for the "well-written" (1a) and "breadth" (3a)
915:
Precisely the confusion I intended to avoid by suggesting "EU" instead. But if we simply accept that placing a relevant article in
166:
3104:
3047:
3001:
1761:
824:
I might go through the list and make sure people are in the correct spots. If the split happens, I can do this at the same time.
2873:
2861:
810:
The line per the existing hidden notes is BLP, living people go into Political figures, dead people go into Historical figures.
591:
2967:
I've said that it should be delisted if they do not respond. The reviewer clearly responded now, so it should not be delisted.
2593:
2538:
this case, I usually consider it a criterion 2 failure in relation to copyright and failing to properly paraphrase the source.
2425:
2029:
I like TheNuggeteer, and honestly think they've done good work with GACR, but I don't think they're able to evaluate 1a of the
1943:
1864:
1805:
778:
868:
My bad, I did not mean the European Union, but instead Europe as a whole. This would mean including countries from this list:
2787:
2203:
1273:
1115:
3074:...and unclosed and restored to a blank newly-started review page again with the edit summary "Fixing formatting problem". â
2648:
2829:
if a nominator isnât super active, has a history of not being receptive to criticism etc. then iâd lean more towards fail.
3032:
2982:
2938:
2379:
2018:
I think that after "a personal friend of Klein", the comma should be a dot instead, and the next word will be capitalized.
1397:
1255:
887:
703:
2849:
2834:
2756:
2712:
2694:
2225:
1958:
1924:
1881:
1776:
1208:
755:
741:
2652:
1735:
3100:
3043:
3012:
2997:
2958:
2904:
2334:
2290:
2211:
2112:
2059:
2038:
514:
2220:
Iâm willing to review the TNF article as itâs in my scope of interest. Whatâs the protocol for taking over a review?
1702:
1696:
786:
2329:, maybe try to get someone to work there on articles and then co-nominate them when you both think they're ready?
129:
21:
2881:
2783:
2554:
2512:
2508:
2257:
2191:
2164:
1907:
1720:
1269:
1111:
618:
that have their own categories, even with only one entry, while multiple episodes of a series will be listed in
491:
480:
469:
458:
133:
concerns with a specific review, please consider discussing things with the reviewer first before posting here.
3118:
3079:
3065:
2584:
academic/non-academic reviewers, by views on certain aspects of the book, or by positive/negative reviewers) ~
1708:
1674:
too many times today now, but I'll do so as a courtesy since GARC is also something you've primarily organized.
497:
3057:
2845:
2830:
2770:
2752:
2728:
2708:
2268:
2221:
2148:, you are also simultaneously reviewing five different GANs right now, four of which you have not finished.
2130:
2097:
1982:
1974:
1954:
1920:
1877:
1772:
1580:
1435:
1349:
1204:
1084:
1049:
982:
938:
906:
851:
815:
679:
2716:
94:
2954:
2815:
2458:
2450:
2369:
2330:
2304:
2286:
2207:
2108:
2078:
2069:
2055:
2034:
2011:
1837:
1827:
774:
486:
1977:: I really like this idea. I will add requirements for users wanting to participate and see how it goes.
552:: (Road infrastructure: Michigan highways) (Road infrastructure: Other Midwestern United States highways)
2913:
2742:
1757:
1690:
1644:
1079:
is definitely not true. The concept of Europe has historically crept east, as it continues to do today.
1063:
1033:
1004:
782:
103:
2704:
2700:
2877:
2660:
2656:
2623:
2619:
2574:
2539:
2516:
2343:
i have to second this - please don't rush into things, and please listen to other editors' feedback.
2282:
2242:
2176:
2149:
1892:
1562:
1477:
1309:
1019:
924:
801:
763:
718:
647:
464:
495:
475:
3114:
3075:
3061:
2688:
2680:
2589:
2421:
2405:
2356:
1939:
1860:
1801:
1628:
1546:
1371:
1229:
953:
462:
3122:
3108:
3083:
3069:
3051:
3037:
3005:
2987:
2962:
2943:
2917:
2885:
2853:
2838:
2819:
2791:
2774:
2760:
2746:
2732:
2664:
2641:
2627:
2597:
2578:
2560:
2531:
2493:
2462:
2440:
2429:
2411:
2387:
2362:
2338:
2308:
2294:
2263:
2229:
2215:
2197:
2170:
2134:
2116:
2101:
2082:
2063:
2042:
2002:
1986:
1962:
1947:
1928:
1913:
1885:
1868:
1831:
1809:
1648:
1634:
1609:
1584:
1566:
1552:
1526:
1503:
1481:
1466:
1439:
1424:
1402:
1377:
1353:
1338:
1313:
1297:
1277:
1260:
1235:
1211:
1196:
1177:
1156:
1140:
1119:
1088:
1067:
1053:
1037:
1023:
1008:
994:
972:
957:
942:
928:
910:
892:
863:
833:
819:
805:
790:
767:
749:
722:
708:
683:
668:
651:
635:
2766:
2724:
2126:
2093:
1978:
1671:
1663:
1576:
1472:
What's "actors, models, performers, directors" and "other celebrities" look like? Useful, or? --
1431:
1409:
1345:
1080:
1045:
978:
934:
902:
847:
811:
675:
2900:
2272:
484:
2876:. The discussion regards whether season articles should go through the GA/FAC or FLC process.
3028:
2978:
2934:
2812:
2455:
2314:
2301:
2278:
2234:
2145:
2075:
2014:
1824:
1679:
1678:
Hi there, I don't want to come off as discourteous, but I have concerns that make me believe @
1393:
1251:
883:
727:
I don't have a strong opinion on which is better, but "EU political figures" is potentially a
699:
662:
2604:
2497:
2030:
2909:
2738:
1998:
1836:
Your more recent nominations don't inspire much confidence in me either. Your nomination of
1640:
1059:
1029:
1000:
919:
category is fine, I think we can just choose not to have the problem in the first place. --
493:
482:
471:
460:
182:
610:, so I am not sure if the community wants to keep these separated or find another solution.
3094:
nomination is malformed -- Status indicates review has started but there is no review page
2570:
1605:
1573:
Knowledge (XXG):Good articles/Art and architecture#Architecture â Forts and fortifications
1558:
1522:
1499:
1488:
1473:
1462:
1420:
1334:
1305:
1293:
1192:
1173:
1152:
1136:
1015:
968:
920:
829:
797:
759:
714:
643:
631:
2322:
534:
473:
169:
discussions and keep related topics together, several other GA talk pages redirect here.
2635:
2585:
2525:
2417:
2395:
2346:
1935:
1856:
1816:
1797:
1618:
1536:
1361:
1219:
949:
1819:
Hmm, seems like a good option, since I could actually use more time to make more GA's.
2271:, if you would like to get credit for the review, you can follow the instructions at
1667:
1326:
733:
2505:
The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey#Critical reception
1415:
Ireland" and "European history: other" over using subheadings for European history.
576:: (Monarchs: Europe), (Monarchs: other). Another option is to separate by timeframe.
3018:
2968:
2924:
1845:
1383:
1241:
873:
737:
689:
594:: (Duos, trios, and groups) (Performers, composers, and other music-related people)
159:
732:
Turkish and/or Russian politicians European political figures vs. is someone like
1994:
1919:
review but have nominated enough GAs to show they understand could participate.
1712:
140:
3017:
I've rollbacked everything, so you should be able to continue your review now.
781:. Of course, it may be the case that they ought to be recategorised entirely.
2807:
1601:
1518:
1495:
1458:
1416:
1330:
1289:
1188:
1169:
1148:
1132:
964:
825:
627:
3060:. No evidence of source review. Is that supposed to be considered adequate? â
1686:
Many of his recent GANs have had significant concerns brought up by editors:
1750:
were all speedily deleted after Dmries brought up concerns with his reviews
1705:(July 8) â quickfailed for failing to meet the minimum level of contribution
622:. How many episodes should be the minimum for a category in this section?
2436:
1796:
clear minimum requirements) in the future, before being added. ~
2996:
Yup, I did that by accident, very sorry! Any way I can undo it?
2874:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured lists § FLs for television seasons
2862:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured lists § FLs for television seasons
2285:
comment above before continuing to nominate or review articles?
1571:
Either way, once grouped a redirect can be put in place like at
2651:
about what the reviews say, but have to rely on the reviews as
1693:(June 27) â quickfailed for being far outside the GAN standards
582:: (Royalty and nobility: Europe), (Royalty and nobility: other)
2202:
I can leave comments on these to finish these reviews, except
1699:(July 5) â quickfailed for being far outside the GAN standards
498:
487:
476:
465:
176:
154:
135:
1639:
I agree that 'Great Britain and Ireland' is the most neutral
933:"British Isles" will of course get us into other problems :)
592:
Performers, groups, composers, and other music-related people
537:
are below that number. I chose not to split some categories (
1743:
1725:
I don't think you have a grasp of what is required for a GA.
870:
List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe
93:
2054:
understanding what they should be looking for in a review.
1517:
together? If listed together, where should they be listed?
588:: (Actors, models, performers, and celebrities) (Directors)
899:
List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia
2483:
1a and 3a in Reception sections with isolated reviewers
2122:
1852:
1849:
1841:
1747:
1739:
111:
2087:
I think requiring experience in GARC is for the best.
1452:
Actors, directors, models, performers, and celebrities
586:
Actors, directors, models, performers, and celebrities
2374:
There's really no helping this person; they may have
1717:
probably shouldn't be submitting and reviewing for GA
2449:
I already work with Hurricanehink to hopefully make
1784:(such as one editor with 153 edits). Most recently,
1657:Concerns about a new GA review circles coordinator
2782:least somewhat feasible to determine authorship.
1744:Talk:Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics/GA1
796:Europe" over Eastern/Western Europe, though. --
777:) â and at least one eighteenth-century figure,
604:Association football teams, events, and concepts
2675:Seeking second opinions on a review I'm doing.
2490:Knowledge (XXG):Copyediting reception sections
2319:List of Olympic medalists for the Philippines
550:Road infrastructure: Midwestern United States
508:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
3113:So where is the required source analysis? â
2519:for combined paragraphs across reviewers.
1842:had to be reverted as a drive-by nomination
1788:after he failed to follow step four of the
1600:and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Ăire".
1595:British Isles, Great Britain, Ireland, Ăire
897:Some countries on that list also appear on
2872:You are invited to join the discussion at
2703:, currently seems to be using the account
2511:for separate paragraphs per reviewer, and
1163:Road infrastructure and music performers
3088:Yep, I was trying to fix this problem:
2503:For some examples of the variance, see
1168:above as described, please post below.
1077:the borders of Europe are pretty static
2897:Talk:Tolkien's Round World dilemma/GA1
2416:Please strike your personal attack. ~
2017:
1764:
1724:
1716:
608:Stadiums, public parks, and amusements
1044:That's one way to describe the Manx.
7:
2317:. I can see you have just nominated
1711:(July 8) â failed nomination where @
15:
2806:After compelling evidence to close
2513:Sappho: A New Translation#Reception
2509:A History of English Food#Reception
2492:, weaving reviewers together for a
2239:Talk:1991 Hindu Kush earthquake/GA1
2121:I think that is fair, I have added
1765:may not meet community expectations
2313:That doesn't address the concerns
14:
1760:wrote on his talk page on July 1
1736:Talk:Giado concentration camp/GA1
512:may be automatically archived by
2867:
2679:I started a review for the page
181:
158:
148:Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
139:
2610:WP:Improper editorial synthesis
2299:Sure, already finished Harold.
1786:a circle had to be re-organized
1730:In addition to his GA reviews:
779:John Mathews (American pioneer)
556:Historical figures: politicians
3123:06:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
3109:06:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
3084:06:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
3070:04:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
3052:23:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
3038:20:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
3006:19:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
2988:19:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
2963:19:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
2944:18:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
2918:18:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
2886:22:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2854:10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2839:04:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2820:03:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2792:21:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
2775:18:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2761:18:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2747:17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2733:15:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2717:15:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2665:16:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
2642:16:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
2517:How the Red Sun Rose#Reception
2463:12:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
2441:00:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
2430:20:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
2412:16:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
2388:16:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
2363:13:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
2339:13:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
2309:11:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
2295:09:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
2264:02:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
2230:15:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2216:02:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2204:Talk:Tumor necrosis factor/GA1
2198:02:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1649:10:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1635:17:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1610:15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1585:02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1567:20:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1553:17:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1527:15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1504:22:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
1482:20:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1467:15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1440:02:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1425:01:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1403:20:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1378:17:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1354:17:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1339:15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1314:20:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1298:15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1278:21:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1261:20:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1236:20:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1212:20:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1197:15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1183:Target number in each category
1178:15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1157:22:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
1141:15:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1120:21:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
2628:20:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
2598:12:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
2579:03:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
2561:02:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
2532:02:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
2327:WikiProject Tropical cyclones
2171:20:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
2135:07:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
2117:07:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
2102:07:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
2083:05:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
2064:01:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
2043:02:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
2003:01:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1987:06:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1963:03:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1948:01:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1929:23:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
1914:23:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
1886:23:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
1869:23:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
1844:and after your nomination at
1832:23:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
1810:23:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
1089:05:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1068:07:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
1054:02:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
1038:07:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
1024:18:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1009:17:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
995:00:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
973:00:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
958:18:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
943:16:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
929:16:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
911:06:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
893:21:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
864:14:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
834:18:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
820:17:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
806:16:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
791:16:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
768:16:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
750:13:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
723:13:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
709:10:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
684:07:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
669:05:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
652:00:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
636:00:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2695:Talk:Louis Edward Curdes/GA1
2237:has begun another review at
614:In addition, there are some
1740:Talk:Jorge Choquetarqui/GA1
620:Other episodes and specials
3151:
2615:WP:Policies and guidelines
2089:WP:Good article mentorship
1697:Talk:Marcelino Libanan/GA1
447:Nominations/Instructions:
101:
50:October 2024 Backlog Drive
1662:I was going to post this
1284:Historical figures: other
562:Historical figures: other
3101:â Closed Limelike Curves
3044:â Closed Limelike Curves
2998:â Closed Limelike Curves
2380:Nineteen Ninety-Four guy
1848:failed, you immediately
1790:coordinator instructions
1709:Talk:Afrique Victime/GA1
1703:Talk:PiĂąon, Colorado/GA1
543:American football people
126:good article nominations
98:Good article nominations
3058:Special:Diff/1246448963
756:Caeciliusinhorto-public
742:Caeciliusinhorto-public
3013:Closed Limelike Curves
2905:Closed Limelike Curves
2891:Passed without comment
2674:
2451:Tropical Storm Kai-tak
1853:without making changes
1838:Typhoon Chanthu (2010)
775:James Dillon Armstrong
515:Lowercase sigmabot III
99:
2846:~~ AirshipJungleman29
2031:Good article criteria
1691:Talk:Sonny Matula/GA1
1304:have any opinion. --
130:good articles process
97:
2895:I just noticed that
2784:Trainsandotherthings
2649:WP:Secondary sources
2392:that's unnecessary.
2281:, could you address
1721:PerfectSoundWhatever
1270:Trainsandotherthings
1112:Trainsandotherthings
580:Royalty and nobility
2908:GAN has a problem.
2693:My review thusfar:
2689:Louis Edward Curdes
2681:Louis Edward Curdes
539:Warships of Germany
2831:IntentionallyDense
2753:IntentionallyDense
2709:IntentionallyDense
2653:WP:Primary sources
2565:I certainly don't
2269:IntentionallyDense
2222:IntentionallyDense
1975:IntentionallyDense
1955:IntentionallyDense
1921:IntentionallyDense
1878:IntentionallyDense
1850:nominated it again
1773:IntentionallyDense
100:
2955:Rollinginhisgrave
2403:
2370:Rollinginhisgrave
2354:
2331:Rollinginhisgrave
2287:Rollinginhisgrave
2283:Thebiguglyalien's
2208:Rollinginhisgrave
2109:Rollinginhisgrave
2070:Rollinginhisgrave
2056:Rollinginhisgrave
2035:Rollinginhisgrave
1626:
1544:
1369:
1227:
616:television series
598:Political figures
522:
521:
173:
172:
153:
152:
92:
91:
3142:
3036:
3024:
3021:
3016:
2986:
2974:
2971:
2942:
2930:
2927:
2871:
2870:
2818:
2705:User:98.97.34.56
2701:User:98.97.46.82
2640:
2638:
2557:
2551:
2548:
2545:
2542:
2530:
2528:
2494:general audience
2461:
2410:
2408:
2401:
2398:
2373:
2361:
2359:
2352:
2349:
2307:
2260:
2254:
2251:
2248:
2245:
2194:
2188:
2185:
2182:
2179:
2167:
2161:
2158:
2155:
2152:
2081:
1910:
1904:
1901:
1898:
1895:
1830:
1762:that his reviews
1758:TechnoSquirrel69
1633:
1631:
1624:
1621:
1551:
1549:
1542:
1539:
1492:
1413:
1401:
1389:
1386:
1376:
1374:
1367:
1364:
1259:
1247:
1244:
1234:
1232:
1225:
1222:
1078:
891:
879:
876:
783:Caeciliusinhorto
707:
695:
692:
665:
568:European history
517:
499:
488:
477:
466:
185:
177:
162:
155:
143:
136:
114:
16:
3150:
3149:
3145:
3144:
3143:
3141:
3140:
3139:
3026:
3022:
3019:
3010:
2976:
2972:
2969:
2932:
2928:
2925:
2893:
2878:RunningTiger123
2868:
2865:
2811:
2804:
2677:
2655:on themselves.
2636:
2634:
2555:
2549:
2546:
2543:
2540:
2526:
2524:
2485:
2454:
2406:
2396:
2393:
2367:
2357:
2347:
2344:
2300:
2258:
2252:
2249:
2246:
2243:
2192:
2186:
2183:
2180:
2177:
2165:
2159:
2156:
2153:
2150:
2074:
1908:
1902:
1899:
1896:
1893:
1823:
1748:Talk:Sikidy/GA1
1734:His reviews at
1715:states that he
1659:
1629:
1619:
1616:
1597:
1547:
1537:
1534:
1514:
1486:
1454:
1407:
1391:
1387:
1384:
1372:
1362:
1359:
1322:
1286:
1249:
1245:
1242:
1230:
1220:
1217:
1185:
1165:
1128:
1076:
881:
877:
874:
697:
693:
690:
663:
527:
513:
502:
501:
500:
494:
489:
483:
478:
472:
467:
461:
455:
454:Search archives
190:
118:
117:
110:
106:
12:
11:
5:
3148:
3146:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3135:
3134:
3133:
3132:
3131:
3130:
3129:
3128:
3127:
3126:
3125:
3115:David Eppstein
3097:
3096:
3095:
3076:David Eppstein
3062:David Eppstein
2994:
2993:
2992:
2991:
2990:
2947:
2946:
2892:
2889:
2864:
2860:Discussion at
2858:
2857:
2856:
2841:
2826:
2803:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2779:
2778:
2777:
2676:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2600:
2581:
2563:
2484:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2432:
2414:
2376:worn the juice
2276:
2232:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2085:
2051:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2020:on this text:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1840:five days ago
1820:
1769:
1768:
1754:
1728:
1727:
1706:
1700:
1694:
1658:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1596:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1513:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1380:
1321:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1285:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1238:
1184:
1181:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1127:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1056:
1042:
1041:
1040:
866:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
808:
730:
686:
671:
657:
654:
612:
611:
601:
595:
589:
583:
577:
571:
565:
559:
553:
526:
523:
520:
519:
507:
504:
503:
496:
492:
490:
485:
481:
479:
474:
470:
468:
463:
459:
457:
456:
453:
452:
411:Reassessment:
323:
322:
314:
274:
234:
192:
191:
186:
180:
171:
170:
163:
151:
150:
144:
128:(GAN) and the
116:
115:
107:
102:
90:
89:
87:
82:
80:
75:
73:
68:
66:
64:Review circles
61:
59:
54:
52:
47:
45:
40:
38:
33:
31:
26:
24:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3147:
3124:
3120:
3116:
3112:
3111:
3110:
3106:
3102:
3098:
3093:
3090:
3089:
3087:
3086:
3085:
3081:
3077:
3073:
3072:
3071:
3067:
3063:
3059:
3055:
3054:
3053:
3049:
3045:
3041:
3040:
3039:
3034:
3030:
3025:
3014:
3009:
3008:
3007:
3003:
2999:
2995:
2989:
2984:
2980:
2975:
2966:
2965:
2964:
2960:
2956:
2951:
2950:
2949:
2948:
2945:
2940:
2936:
2931:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2915:
2911:
2906:
2902:
2898:
2890:
2888:
2887:
2883:
2879:
2875:
2863:
2859:
2855:
2851:
2847:
2842:
2840:
2836:
2832:
2827:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2817:
2814:
2809:
2801:
2793:
2789:
2785:
2780:
2776:
2772:
2768:
2764:
2763:
2762:
2758:
2754:
2750:
2749:
2748:
2744:
2740:
2736:
2735:
2734:
2730:
2726:
2721:
2720:
2719:
2718:
2714:
2710:
2706:
2702:
2697:
2696:
2691:
2690:
2685:
2682:
2666:
2662:
2658:
2654:
2650:
2645:
2644:
2643:
2639:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2625:
2621:
2616:
2611:
2606:
2601:
2599:
2595:
2591:
2587:
2582:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2564:
2562:
2558:
2552:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2529:
2520:
2518:
2514:
2510:
2506:
2501:
2499:
2495:
2491:
2482:
2464:
2460:
2457:
2452:
2448:
2442:
2438:
2433:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2413:
2409:
2399:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2385:
2381:
2377:
2371:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2360:
2350:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2323:Featured List
2320:
2316:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2306:
2303:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2277:
2274:
2270:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2261:
2255:
2240:
2236:
2233:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2195:
2189:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2168:
2162:
2147:
2144:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2127:GMH Melbourne
2125:on the page.
2124:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2094:GMH Melbourne
2090:
2086:
2084:
2080:
2077:
2071:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2022:
2021:
2019:
2016:
2012:
2009:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1979:GMH Melbourne
1976:
1972:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1911:
1905:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1829:
1826:
1821:
1818:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1793:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1778:
1774:
1766:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1707:
1704:
1701:
1698:
1695:
1692:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1684:
1681:
1676:
1675:
1673:
1672:GMH Melbourne
1669:
1665:
1656:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1632:
1622:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1594:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1540:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1511:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1490:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1451:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1411:
1410:Chipmunkdavis
1406:
1405:
1404:
1399:
1395:
1390:
1381:
1379:
1375:
1365:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1327:British Isles
1320:Europe and EU
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1262:
1257:
1253:
1248:
1239:
1237:
1233:
1223:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1210:
1206:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1182:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1075:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1058:Ăire â duhh!
1057:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
997:
996:
992:
988:
984:
980:
979:Mike Christie
976:
975:
974:
970:
966:
961:
960:
959:
955:
951:
946:
945:
944:
940:
936:
932:
931:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
913:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
895:
894:
889:
885:
880:
871:
867:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
848:Mike Christie
845:
835:
831:
827:
823:
822:
821:
817:
813:
809:
807:
803:
799:
794:
793:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
771:
770:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:Mary Docherty
728:
726:
725:
724:
720:
716:
712:
711:
710:
705:
701:
696:
687:
685:
681:
677:
672:
670:
667:
666:
658:
655:
653:
649:
645:
640:
639:
638:
637:
633:
629:
623:
621:
617:
609:
605:
602:
599:
596:
593:
590:
587:
584:
581:
578:
575:
572:
569:
566:
563:
560:
557:
554:
551:
548:
547:
546:
544:
540:
536:
531:
525:GA categories
524:
516:
511:
506:
505:
451:
450:
445:
444:
440:
435:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
409:
408:
404:
400:
396:
391:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
325:
324:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:
193:
189:
184:
179:
178:
175:
168:
164:
161:
157:
156:
149:
145:
142:
138:
137:
134:
131:
127:
123:
113:
109:
108:
105:
96:
88:
86:
83:
81:
79:
76:
74:
72:
69:
67:
65:
62:
60:
58:
55:
53:
51:
48:
46:
44:
41:
39:
37:
34:
32:
30:
27:
25:
23:
20:
18:
17:
3091:
2894:
2866:
2805:
2698:
2692:
2686:
2678:
2566:
2521:
2502:
2486:
2315:TheNuggeteer
2279:TheNuggeteer
2273:WP:GAN/I#N4a
2235:TheNuggeteer
2146:TheNuggeteer
2015:them comment
2013:after I saw
1846:Talk:.tv/GA1
1794:
1770:
1729:
1685:
1680:TheNuggeteer
1677:
1661:
1660:
1598:
1515:
1455:
1323:
1287:
1186:
1166:
1129:
1028:Absolutely!
916:
738:Anthony Eden
664:Lee Vilenski
661:
624:
613:
532:
528:
509:
446:
436:
410:
392:
326:
187:
174:
121:
120:This is the
119:
78:Reassessment
70:
36:Instructions
2910:BlueMoonset
2901:GA criteria
2739:Billsmith60
2699:Nominator:
2498:GA criteria
2437:Elias / PSA
1641:Billsmith60
1060:Billsmith60
1030:Billsmith60
1001:Billsmith60
43:Nominations
2808:Ernie Pike
2802:Ernie Pike
2657:TompaDompa
2620:TompaDompa
2571:asilvering
2033:just yet.
1723:tells him
1559:asilvering
1489:Asilvering
1474:asilvering
1306:asilvering
1016:asilvering
952:(he/him â˘
921:asilvering
798:asilvering
760:asilvering
715:asilvering
644:asilvering
393:Criteria:
167:centralise
122:discussion
71:Discussion
57:Mentorship
2813:đTheNugg
2456:đTheNugg
2302:đTheNugg
2123:this note
2076:đTheNugg
1825:đTheNugg
1817:Freedom4U
1777:talk page
1382:I agree.
1240:I agree.
1126:Follow-up
950:Shushugah
437:GA help:
124:page for
3092:Warning:
3042:Thanks!
3033:contribs
2983:contribs
2939:contribs
2050:reviews.
1668:PCN02WPS
1512:Stadiums
1398:contribs
1358:agreed^
1256:contribs
987:contribs
888:contribs
856:contribs
704:contribs
574:Monarchs
188:Archives
165:To help
146:See the
104:Shortcut
29:Criteria
2816:eteerđ
2605:WP:LEAD
2594:they/it
2459:eteerđ
2453:an FA.
2439:đď¸đŞ
2426:they/it
2402:he/they
2353:he/they
2305:eteerđ
2079:eteerđ
1944:they/it
1865:they/it
1828:eteerđ
1806:they/it
1625:he/they
1543:he/they
1368:he/they
1226:he/they
991:library
860:library
3020:Vacant
2970:Vacant
2926:Vacant
2687:Page:
2397:sawyer
2348:sawyer
2024:later.
1995:Drmies
1746:, and
1713:Drmies
1620:sawyer
1538:sawyer
1385:Vacant
1363:sawyer
1243:Vacant
1221:sawyer
1209:(talk)
917:either
875:Vacant
691:Vacant
510:7 days
112:WT:GAN
85:Report
2550:alien
2253:alien
2187:alien
2160:alien
1903:alien
1719:and @
1602:Z1720
1519:Z1720
1496:Z1720
1459:Z1720
1417:Z1720
1331:Z1720
1290:Z1720
1189:Z1720
1170:Z1720
1149:Z1720
1133:Z1720
965:Z1720
826:Z1720
628:Z1720
535:WP:FA
3119:talk
3105:talk
3080:talk
3066:talk
3048:talk
3029:talk
3002:talk
2979:talk
2959:talk
2935:talk
2914:talk
2882:talk
2850:talk
2835:talk
2788:talk
2771:talk
2757:talk
2743:talk
2729:talk
2713:talk
2661:talk
2637:czar
2624:talk
2590:talk
2575:talk
2567:like
2556:talk
2547:ugly
2527:czar
2422:talk
2407:talk
2394:...
2384:talk
2358:talk
2345:...
2335:talk
2321:for
2291:talk
2259:talk
2250:ugly
2226:talk
2212:talk
2193:talk
2184:ugly
2166:talk
2157:ugly
2131:talk
2113:talk
2098:talk
2060:talk
2039:talk
1999:talk
1983:talk
1959:talk
1940:talk
1925:talk
1909:talk
1900:ugly
1882:talk
1861:talk
1855:. ~
1802:talk
1782:here
1752:here
1666:on @
1664:here
1645:talk
1630:talk
1617:...
1606:talk
1581:talk
1563:talk
1548:talk
1535:...
1523:talk
1500:talk
1478:talk
1463:talk
1436:talk
1421:talk
1394:talk
1373:talk
1360:...
1350:talk
1335:talk
1310:talk
1294:talk
1274:talk
1252:talk
1231:talk
1218:...
1193:talk
1174:talk
1153:talk
1137:talk
1116:talk
1085:talk
1064:talk
1050:talk
1034:talk
1020:talk
1005:talk
983:talk
969:talk
954:talk
939:talk
925:talk
907:talk
884:talk
852:talk
830:talk
816:talk
802:talk
787:talk
764:talk
746:talk
729:much
719:talk
700:talk
680:talk
648:talk
632:talk
327:GA:
22:Main
2767:CMD
2725:CMD
2586:F4U
2544:big
2541:The
2515:or
2507:or
2418:F4U
2378::P
2247:big
2244:The
2181:big
2178:The
2154:big
2151:The
1936:F4U
1897:big
1894:The
1857:F4U
1798:F4U
1775:'s
1577:CMD
1432:CMD
1346:CMD
1216:+1
1205:PMC
1081:CMD
1046:CMD
989:-
935:CMD
903:CMD
858:-
812:CMD
676:CMD
3121:)
3107:)
3082:)
3068:)
3050:)
3031:â˘
3004:)
2981:â˘
2961:)
2937:â˘
2916:)
2903:.
2884:)
2852:)
2837:)
2790:)
2773:)
2759:)
2745:)
2731:)
2715:)
2707:.
2663:)
2626:)
2596:)
2592:â˘
2577:)
2559:)
2428:)
2424:â˘
2404:*
2400:*
2386:)
2355:*
2351:*
2337:)
2293:)
2262:)
2228:)
2214:)
2196:)
2169:)
2133:)
2115:)
2100:)
2062:)
2041:)
2010:,
2001:)
1985:)
1961:)
1946:)
1942:â˘
1927:)
1912:)
1884:)
1867:)
1863:â˘
1808:)
1804:â˘
1792:.
1742:,
1738:,
1647:)
1627:*
1623:*
1608:)
1583:)
1575:.
1565:)
1545:*
1541:*
1525:)
1502:)
1480:)
1465:)
1438:)
1423:)
1396:â˘
1370:*
1366:*
1352:)
1337:)
1312:)
1296:)
1276:)
1254:â˘
1228:*
1224:*
1207:â
1195:)
1176:)
1155:)
1139:)
1118:)
1087:)
1066:)
1052:)
1036:)
1022:)
1007:)
993:)
985:-
971:)
956:)
941:)
927:)
909:)
901:.
886:â˘
872:.
862:)
854:-
832:)
818:)
804:)
789:)
766:)
748:)
721:)
702:â˘
682:)
650:)
634:)
541:,
441:,
431:,
427:,
423:,
419:,
415:,
405:,
401:,
397:,
389:16
387:,
385:15
383:,
381:14
379:,
377:13
375:,
373:12
371:,
369:11
367:,
365:10
363:,
359:,
355:,
351:,
347:,
343:,
339:,
335:,
331:,
320:32
318:,
316:31
312:30
310:,
308:29
306:,
304:28
302:,
300:27
298:,
296:26
294:,
292:25
290:,
288:24
286:,
284:23
282:,
280:22
278:,
276:21
272:20
270:,
268:19
266:,
264:18
262:,
260:17
258:,
256:16
254:,
252:15
250:,
248:14
246:,
244:13
242:,
240:12
238:,
236:11
232:10
230:,
226:,
222:,
218:,
214:,
210:,
206:,
202:,
198:,
3117:(
3103:(
3078:(
3064:(
3046:(
3035:)
3027:(
3023:0
3015::
3011:@
3000:(
2985:)
2977:(
2973:0
2957:(
2941:)
2933:(
2929:0
2912:(
2880:(
2848:(
2833:(
2786:(
2769:(
2755:(
2741:(
2727:(
2711:(
2659:(
2622:(
2588:(
2573:(
2553:(
2420:(
2382:(
2372::
2368:@
2333:(
2289:(
2256:(
2224:(
2210:(
2190:(
2163:(
2129:(
2111:(
2096:(
2068:@
2058:(
2037:(
1997:(
1981:(
1973:@
1957:(
1938:(
1923:(
1906:(
1880:(
1859:(
1815:@
1800:(
1767:.
1756:@
1643:(
1604:(
1579:(
1561:(
1521:(
1498:(
1491::
1487:@
1476:(
1461:(
1434:(
1419:(
1412::
1408:@
1400:)
1392:(
1388:0
1348:(
1333:(
1308:(
1292:(
1272:(
1258:)
1250:(
1246:0
1203:â
1191:(
1172:(
1151:(
1135:(
1114:(
1083:(
1062:(
1048:(
1032:(
1018:(
1003:(
981:(
967:(
937:(
923:(
905:(
890:)
882:(
878:0
850:(
828:(
814:(
800:(
785:(
762:(
754:@
744:(
717:(
706:)
698:(
694:0
678:(
646:(
630:(
518:.
449:1
443:2
439:1
433:6
429:5
425:4
421:3
417:2
413:1
407:4
403:3
399:2
395:1
361:9
357:8
353:7
349:6
345:5
341:4
337:3
333:2
329:1
228:9
224:8
220:7
216:6
212:5
208:4
204:3
200:2
196:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
