User talk:Queenieacoustic

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this, that's some nice work. Good to see a new WP:DOH member who actually attempts to properly write articles, and does a fine job to. Welcome aboard. Gran² 22:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Homer The Moe.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Simpsons (Annoyed Grunt)-star
		For your hard work at improving the season 13 episode pages and getting several to GA. It's great to have some newer users taking interest in Simpsons articles. -- Scorpion0422 16:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've offered a review. J Milburn (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Queenieacoustic. I've produced comments at Talk:Homer_the_Moe/GA1. Good luck! --Philcha (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Queenieacoustic. I've just reviewed the lead, and it's fine. There is one outstanding point in the "Plot" section, the cumbersome "(which, though indicated by a sign, angers Michael Stipe, lead singer of R.E.M. who was told by Homer that this was an environmental activist bar)". Then it can be a GA. But don't delay - this review is 1-month old today. PS I'll be on holiday Fri 18 to Mon 28 Mar. --Philcha (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done :-) --Philcha (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I have completed the GA review of The Blunder Years and placed the nomination on hold pending a few issues that need to be addressed. Please see Talk:The Blunder Years/GA1 for details. Thank you, –MuZemike 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing Treehouse of Horror XII in the next day or so. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 03:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just added my review. It just needs a few minor fixes, and then it will be good to go! Ruby2010 talk 17:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reviewed A Hunka Hunka Burns in Love and have placed the review on hold. The issues can be found on the articles talk page. Thanks. -- Matthew RD 18:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed The Lastest Gun in the West and placed it on hold for seven days. Please take a look at my suggestions. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 18:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reviewed The Great Money Caper and left comments. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 19:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gump Roast you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Gump Roast for things which need to be addressed. The only concerns are that the writing style could be made more formal and given a clean-up; plus the article could be illustrated better with the addition of a lead image, preferably a screenshot from the episode. Either of these issues being addressed would satisfy me enough to pass the nomination, but I'd suggest to look at both anyway. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed She of Little Faith and placed it on hold for seven days. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Queenieacoustic, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Queenieacoustic/Mom and Pop Art SANDBOX. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The season eleven/twelve pages are pretty empty, I assume because they're very subpar episodes. But it certainly doesn't mean we can't help them. There's valuable information in the commentaries and that can be used. I plan on trying to add a lot more screenshots when possible. Thanks again! Thardin12 (talk)

As I see there is a bit of a backlog of GANs right now, would you be interested in reviewing some? I know you have nominated quite a few articles for GA in the past (as well as in the present), and thought you would be a good reviewer. We're always looking for more help! Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 21:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No prob :) Ruby2010 comment! 20:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the fixes for August (Fringe). Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 16:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can take a look at the review for Viva Ned Flanders now. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 00:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I believe I've addressed all your points. — Hunter Kahn 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is currently on hold. I don't have the DVD of the episode, so I'll read the transcript.Railer-man (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have addressed your concerns for the page. Feel free to look over it again. -- Matthew RD 02:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Simpsons (Annoyed Grunt)-star
		You're a The Simpsons good article machine!! Keep up the great work, and continue to do WP:DOH proud with your astonishing number of great GAs!! :-D CTJF83 12:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can alter the season 14 colours by editing these templates: Template:Infobox Simpsons season 14 episode list header and Template:Infobox Simpsons season 14 episode list.

But, you can not alter the text colour for specific seasons/episodes. So, you should not use the dark colour used at the season 14 page. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 05:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:I Am Furious Yellow Promo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you got the image from http://www.lardlad.com/, which can't legally release the image, cause they don't own the copyright, your best option is to tag it WP:G7 and have it deleted. Looks good if you want to ever WP:RfA :) CTJF83 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but is there some way I could use the image in the article? I've seen several Simpsons episode GAs that have more than one copyrighted image. I'll remove the current image, but I think what I'm trying to say is, if I find the image on Fox or Simpsons website, can I use it in the article? And are you saying you want me to be an admin? (Sorry for all the questions.... I'm really tired lol... XD ) Queenieacoustic (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up in case you ever want to be an admin. An image from Fox, Simpsons website, or DVD is ok, cause they own the copyright, lardlad.com does not. Keep in mind #8 at WP:NFCC also, and when possible try to use mostly or all free images. CTJF83 19:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding, lol! I'll see if I can find it on their website, otherwise I'll just let it be. Again sorry for the inconvenience. Queenieacoustic (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No inconvenience or bother at all! Due to your good work with articles, I've taken it upon myself to keep you on the right track! :) CTJF83 19:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :D Queenieacoustic (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you go to WP:DOH/TOPIC most of the season 2 and 3 (the newest WP:GTs) have very few non-free images without a really good reason. :) CTJF83 20:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, haha! I guess it just changed over time, just like the GA standards. I just looked at a couple of the season 4 and 9 articles and many of them seem very short and undetailed, at least in comparison to the season 2 and 3 articles. Maybe we should organize some members to expand the early GA articles? I guess it would be better to focus on the Scully episodes first, even though they're pretty bad, and there's seriously no season 11 DVD reviews on the internet (I found two, Den of Geek and DVD Movie Guide. That's it!) Oh well. Queenieacoustic (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I'll see what I can scrounge up :) Ruby2010 comment! 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered several articles explaining the episode gained a 8.5 rating (see below) and placed 40th for the week.

Taken from: JAG HELPS CBS WIN WEEK BY A NOSE; [Broward Metro Edition] The Associated Press. Sun Sentinel. Fort Lauderdale: Nov 19, 1998. pg. 4.E

A rating point represents 994,000 households, or 1 percent of the nation's estimated 99.4 million TV homes. Share is the percentage of in-use televisions tuned to a given show.

Prime-time ratings compiled by Nielsen list each show's ranking and its rating for Nov. 9-15. Top 20 listings include total homes, plus season-to-date rankings in parentheses for Top 10 shows. An "X" in parentheses denotes one-time-only presentation.

1. (1) ER, NBC, 19.8, 19.6 million homes.

.........

40. The Simpsons, Fox, 8.5

---

Here's another that had the same ratings data:

PRIME-TIME RATINGS; [MORNING Edition] Orange County Register. Santa Ana, Calif.: Nov 18, 1998. pg. F.02

Here are the prime-time ratings as compiled by Nielsen Media Research for Nov. 9-15. Top 20 listings include the week's ranking, season-to-date rankings in parentheses (an X in parentheses indicates a one-time showing) and rating for the week. Shows with the same number indicate a tie. The rating is the percentage of the nation's estimated 98 million TV homes. Each ratings point represents 980,000 households.

40. THE SIMPSONS, Fox, 8.5

Hope all this helps. Let me know if you need more! :) Ruby2010 comment! 01:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you with finding ratings on your own. Please try logging into IRC, go here and go to the channel #wpsimpsons. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been improving "Baby Not on Board" so it could reach GA standards, but there are some sources that I've been needing. Perhaps another transcript would suffice? Your "420" transcript really helped, and I figure a "Baby Not on Board" transcript would, too. Railer-man (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I would do this myself but I have zero time (until next Friday), but Girly Edition has been nominated for Good Article Removal. It was only a matter of time because most of the early episode pages we did (most of seasons 8, 9, 6 and 4) have been superseded in quality by the newer ones and really need improvement (this is one of my targets for the summer). So, if you have time, please could you work your magic on it? That would be fantastic. Thanks, Gran² 15:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay no worries. I'll see if I can do it in a week's time (the GAR process lasts a month). Gran² 19:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Wow! I'm really impressed by all the work you've been doing for the Simpsons project! It's simply excellent. Keep it up! Theleftorium (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions on the article are inappropriate and unexplained. There are few reasons that one may quick decline a review but in all instances the reviewer must explain the decision. Your list of references and a request for further with no comment is not a review and a review page was never started which constitutes a breach in protocol and policy and is a bad faith edit with extreme incivility.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Foud your so called review. Thanks for nothing. A hold would have been appropriate and with these notes there was nothing that couldn't be addressed and I am not certain many of your objections are relevant.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assumming that I made the mistakes.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I didn't put all the crap there and you mistake was far worse because you didn't follow correct procedure for the review and it pushed back the article and the person trying to improve it with bad faith editing on your part.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the guidelines for reviewing. You made more than one mistake. There was no link to the review article on the talk page.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK...you made a review and your review finds were not without merit. They were in fact dead on. I don't think you made a mistake by failing it. I think the mistake was not properly starting the review as I have been watching the page and never saw the review page show up. Had I seen it I could well have shown you it wouldn't take that long by starting and working on the article immediately. You did not quick fail as there was a review. Failing the article after your assessment may be considered incivil but I believe if there are so many problems that you yourself could not remove or fix them in 7 days, it isn't against policy. The only action you would probably be guilty of with no question is your not checking the talk page to see that the review was being transfered correctly available to contributers to see as you work. We do not review within a subpage and drop it in and fail all at once. Working in such a way would go against the spirit and idea of Wikipedia. It isn't against policy to fail or pass. You just have to do it in the open and as a reviewer it is your responsibility to know if your review is open for all to see.

I have relisted, if you wish you can review it and return all you concerns or leave it and I will address all your concerns and wait for the next review. I am in no hurry if you do not wish to return to it. However, I should be encouraging reviews not discouraging them even in this instance. I need to assume good faith.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to check on IMDB but, as I recall it was the consensus of editors that it did fall under reliable published references. The official website of subjects may be used. It is clear, however that some of it's use may go farther than MOS as much of the information is not the original source but Fox news releases. I would argue that they are licensed from Fox so it does have some value an official web page and whatever limited way it can be cited. A fansite consists of an unlisenced site run by the fans themselves. Those sites have no editorial oversite and are all self published. Any information they contain can not be used unless they are the subject of comment and only for illustrative purposes.--Amadscientist (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that the bot assigned to tranfer the Review page to the talk page has malfunctioned. I had "Pending" Changes show up instead of text this morning as well. You have to start sometime with other articles and you didn't get anything major wrong except not just checking your review to talk page. Had you seen it (or if it happens in the future) I would suggest making sure all steps are correctly taken before you begin reviewing such as changing the talk page Review tag and establishing the review page is transfering by making a single edit and saving to eststablish the page to allow the bots to begin transfer correctly, etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the Official site can be used with the Fox news releases as they constitute primary sourcing with news releases on the subject. They are official sanctioned and licensed for use of images etc and have editorial over site. Still not clear on IMDB but believe the article as it stands is not a Good Article candidate and will be removing it for now. The article is half the size it was just a few days ago and a good portion of accurate information had to be removed simply because it was not properly sited. And some of those references were mine and many of them were outside edits from IP an other registered members. I think it's about a C article right now. There are many new books that have become available for sourcing and there are many free or CC licensed imagie. The article should probably just use intense work to improve it's accuracy, neutrality and references. If you know much about the subject please feel free to weigh in and be a critical ear.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! Yes, IMDB can NOT be used for the following:

1. Any potentially contentious material about living persons (BLPs)
2. The IMDb message boards, which are inherently not reliable.
3. The user comments for each title, which are pure user-generated content.
4. Sections written in wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ), the parents guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control).
5. Newsgroup reviews, which are archived Usenet postings.
6. The trivia and goofs sections that are based on user submissions.
7. The recommendations.

It's use as a reference is limited to:

1. The writing credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable).
2. The MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, that are supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America.

Thanks! --Amadscientist (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er...no....I was right the first time. Consensus still accepts IMDB and it has not become an official guideline yet, however your original reasoning still stands and may not be a GA worthy reference. Time will tell.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Clear x3 19:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reviewed the episode article, which you posted up at GAN a while back. I've left a few comments, and I'll put it on hold right after this. Nice work so far; there are only a few comments to address. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually two more things that need to be addressed. Good work on everything else, though! --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reviewed Lisa Gets an "A". The page can be found here. Once again, only a few minor tweaks, and you'll have another GA on your hands. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	You've been doing an amazing job expanding and promoting The Simpsons articles, so I just thought I'd recognize your efforts! Each one I review seems to get better and better (particularly in the use of themes and variety of sources you use). Keep up the good work! Ruby2010 comment! 03:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed Poppa's Got a Brand New Badge. Only a couple prose issues and one ref nitpick of mine, and you'll have yet another GA on your hands. :) --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I have addressed all if the article's issues. Hope you have a great vacation!! Crystal Clear x3 23:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	I'm very impressed by the work you've been doing lately on the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror article. It's great to see a -sourced- Cultural References section being added! Doniago (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Make Room for Lisa and Homer Simpson in: "Kidney Trouble" into certified "Good Articles"! Your work is much appreciated. Thanks also for your reviews. Featured article candidates and Good Article nominees always need more reviewers! All the best, – Quadell (talk)

	You did it again!
	Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making They Saved Lisa's Brain a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

And Mom and Pop Art now too! Congratulations. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mom and Pop Art you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Mom and Pop Art for things which need to be addressed. —Andrew_stalk 00:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just indicate that the writing was only on the garage in this episode, then we'll be good to go! —Andrew_stalk 09:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listed. Well done. —Andrew_stalk 10:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article The Computer Wore Menace Shoes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Computer Wore Menace Shoes you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Computer Wore Menace Shoes for things which need to be addressed. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Computer Wore Menace Shoes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Computer Wore Menace Shoes for comments about the article. Well done! Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 11:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! :) I've finished the article. Do you think you could look it over before I nominate it? Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Yes I do think it's reliable since it's published by Pearson PLC, but if you can add the commentary as well then that would be good! Theleftorium ^(talk) 13:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Just a friendly reminder that there remains one more issue to fix before I can promote the article. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 19:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Simpson Safari you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Simpson Safari for comments about the article. Well done! GRAPPLE X 16:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Day of the Jackanapes you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Day of the Jackanapes for things which need to be addressed. GRAPPLE X 22:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your tireless work to improve an impressive amount of Simpsons episode articles. Maitch (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all is well with you Queenieacoustic! You're missed. :( Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please request possible.

Is it possible to develop an article Singer of the High School Musical, Corbin Bleu and become a good article See the article Arabic Wikipedia good article, can you? .

Look at this version will help you to become a good article. I do not see any adjustment well in this article, can you make a good article as an article Biographies.

Success in your life. Goodbye. --2.91.153.114 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2011 (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. 13:32, 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)15:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 1 – October 2012 September-December 2008, 2009, 2010, January-April 2011 | November 2012 Project News[1] 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 oldest unreviewed articles are: General sejm, Prime Minister of Vietnam, Tanisha Thomas, Kosta Pećanac, and Jilly Kitzinger. 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. Barry (dog) I Love Bees Miles Copeland (Home and Away) London Country North East The Daily Show Some Tips About References/Sources 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. Contributors to this Issue Dom497 (Editor of this Issue) Did You Know... ... that 2,100 articles have been reviewed during all backlog elimination drives combined? ... that out of 4,055,039 articles on Wikipedia, only 15,846 are good articles? ... that there are currently over 400 video game good articles? Notes ^ As of October 2, 2012 at 19:05 (UTC). ^ 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! WikiProject Good Articles: Open Tasks This project identifies, organizes and improves good articles on Wikipedia. Nominations: Atlanta Braves (talk | history | start review) • Dick Simpson (politician) (talk | history | start review) • Darren Moore (talk | history | start review) • Pete Astudillo (talk | history | start review) • UNICEF club (talk | history | start review) Reassessment: Hurricane Allen • Haile Selassie • Wild Arms (video game) • Ben Nevis • The Nightmare • Walt Disney Animation Studios • USS Texas (BB-35) • Battle of Plataea • Task forces: Project quality • Sweeps • GAN Backlog Drives • GA Cup WikiProject Good articles newsletter (last updated January 2013) Good article criteria | Statistics | GAN Report | Changes log Nominations list | edit

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 2 – November 2012 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Request for Comment: An RFC about the Backlog Elimination Drives has been started this month. Go and voice your opinions! Featured editorial: A Matter of Time: The Future of Backlog Elimination Drives Project News: Over 345 unreviewed articles, 13 at reassessment Good Articles of the Month GA Task Forces: A calmed GA community awaiting for an RFC Member News: 223 members of the GA Wikiproject Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brother's Little Helper.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:D'oh-in in the Wind.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gump Roast.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Little Girl in the Big Ten.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:She of Little Faith.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Skinner's Sense of Snow.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Old Man and the Key.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Sweetest Apu.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Parent Rap.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Frying Game.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thirty Minutes over Tokyo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:They Saved Lisa's Brain.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Treehouse of Horror XII.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Worst Episode Ever.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Viva Ned Flanders.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume III, No. 3 – December 2012 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: "Drive-By Reviews": A Retrospective About Reviews During Backlog Drives Project News: A backlog elimination drive is being held now at GAN. Good Articles of the Month: Our picks for November, 150+ promotions. GA Task Forces: Results from the Backlog Elimination RfC Member News: 227 members of WikiProject Good Articles and counting Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 1 – January 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Skyfall by Hahc21. Project News: A record, and issue and a future. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 190 articles passed in December! GA Task Forces: Results from the drive Member News: Two crucial users leave the project Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 3 January 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January! GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here. At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members). So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Lastest Gun in the West.png. 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 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for uploading the screenshots for Homer the Moe, A Hunka Hunka Burns in Love, The Blunder Years and Tales from the Public Domain. Wimpyguy (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions03:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lisa Gets an "A".png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! A GAN Backlog Drive will begin in less than 4 days! In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00. At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the Backlog Drive talk page. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!--EdwardsBot (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013! If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive! If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here--EdwardsBot (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

• This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
• Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
• The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
• An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers. Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]