![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It's a thorny issue that I would welcome some outside perspective on - need outside opinions as to the usage of President/president within this article. Please respond at Talk:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln/GA1 in the ->>>Outside opinions regarding President/president section. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 02:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I enjoy tracking which articles I've worked on that have been promoted as quality content at other Wikipedia language projects. For example, Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall has also been promoted at Spanish Wikipedia ( es:Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall).
Is there a way to request that a promoted article at English Wikipedia be translated and promoted at other Wikipedias, too? So, for instance, could I request the translation and promotion of Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall at French Wikipedia? I'm not seeing something like this in any of the translation-related pages, but it would be nice if multilingual folks could more easily promote content based on already-promoted content here or elsewhere.
Just a thought, and wondering if anyone else might have other thoughts. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, my nomination of America's 60 Families was taken up for review by a relatively new editor with less than 500 edits [1], which itself is fine. However, I've had some difficulty communicating with them. The review was opened on January 5 and has stalled out as they've only logged-in to WP once in the last three weeks [2]. Would it be possible for someone to take-over this review (even if it's just to take it over to fail it, so I can reapply and get it back in the queue)? Thanks. DarjeelingTea ( talk) 23:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I recently promoted Louis B. Seltzer to GA status, however, the icon has not appeared on the page, nor has the automated template notification posted to Bobnorwal's talk page. Did I miss a step? DarjeelingTea ( talk) 07:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to request aGA reassessment of Al-Shorta SC. I thought I did it right by creating Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Shorta SC/1, but then felt I screwed things up and created Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Shorta SC/2. I think the latter is the correct way it should have been done per the instructions given for community reassessment on the main page, but I'm not sure. I'm also not sure what to do with the first page I created. Can I just request speedy deletion or should it be redirected? FWIW, the editor who reviewed the article and passed it through to GA and who also commented on the first subpage has been checkuser confirmed to be a sockpuppet of the GA nominator of the article, so not sure how that affects anything and if a GA reassessment is even necessary now that it seems to have been inappropriately given in the first place. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi to all. An editor I met at the Teahouse (a newbie) has asked me, at different times over the past month, to review 3 different articles for them (see my talk page). I've completed 2 and have just started the third. These are all topics I don't edit in (one was a sports player, one was a lighthouse and the current one is a science article). I guess that's a good thing, because that makes it easier to be objective. I'm just curious as to whether I'm wrong in accepting requests like this, especially multiple ones. If I am wrong, I won't accept anymore. I don't want to say anything to the editor yet because they are genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia, and I sure DON'T want to discourage that. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
About five months ago, I nominated the article Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too for GA consideration. However, now that it is number 5 on the list of articles to be reviewed, I need to freeze it/put it on hold. For the better part of May, I will be unable to access the Internet, and will not be able to make requested changes if it's reviewed while I'm offline. Does anyone know how I can make sure the article isn't reviewed until after I'm back online?
Thanks, Anotheronewiki ( talk) 20:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Both "Finn the Human" (Adventure Time episode) and "Jake the Dog" (Adventure Time episode) have been identified as Good articles. Now they merged into a new article, "Finn the Human" / "Jake the Dog" and it is currently listed as Good article without any assessment. I think it should be reassessed.-- Namoroka ( talk) 13:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
On 23 March I nominated the Marcel Lihau for GA status. Though this nomination is acknowledged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo's automated processes, I cannot find it in the master list. Can this be fixed? - Indy beetle ( talk) 03:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Somebody please fix my syntax...or, wait, did I get it right after all? Drmies ( talk) 17:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
At WP:Good articles/recent, it looks like User:Jarry1250's User:LivingBot missed the Prayer of Saint Francis article that was promoted to GA this morning (5 June). This automated update now has failed for two of my three times through the GA process, but maybe I'm especially unlucky. For this morning's article, was there a human procedure that got overlooked somehow, or was the bot malfunctioning? — Patrug ( talk) 20:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a problem with a review here Talk:Defeating_ISIS/GA1 — I am not sure if a 4 day old article with only one significant contributor can pass the stability criteria. I also don't think the article satisfies the well-written criteria yet. The editor has become very upset, and is now demanding that I not review any more of their articles. I could use some assistance before I close. Thank you, Seraphim System ( talk) 17:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I recently visited the talk page of the GA article Rebecca Anderson and noticed that it had not been assessed in one of its WikiProject boxes (despite being rated 'Good Article' in all other boxes). Am I allowed to rate the article 'GA' in this one empty WikiProject box, despite the fact that I am neither a nominator or a reviewer for this article? Alanna the Brave ( talk) 21:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
What are the practical advantages of getting an article to "good article" status? Are there editors/bots who add them to their watchlists to keep an eye on them? Thanks.-- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 08:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey! I built a tool[dead link] that might be of interest to some of you. It pulls down the list of good article nominations and sorts them by ORES rating. There a couple of little things to note. Everything is done client-side every page refresh, so it will take a minute to process everything. There is a reason that some articles appear to sort out-of-order (articles are sorted by GA and FA probability added together, which in some instances conflicts with the predicted class returned by ORES that is printed next to each article). Feedback is appreciated. I might do work on making it prettier later, or having a bot post the report onwiki as a supplement to WP:GANR. TheDragonFire ( talk) 14:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't find it? I'd like to update my GAs/GARs. — Calvin999 14:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I have returned to WP editing after absence of a few years to find that some of the articles I did most work on have recently got GA status. For example I have written most the prose and did most of the sourcing for Sylvia Plath - I am the top content adder for the article. (The GA nominator did no work on the article - it seems like a drive by nom.) What are the rules about using the GA icon on my user page? Thanks Anna ( talk) 14:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
A while back I nominated the page Pumi dog for GA review. Today I see that an editor has covered the page in citation tags (some reasonable and some not - the majority for already-cited facts where a mid-para citation simply needs moving to end para), and then closed the review as a fail. As far as I can see there was no review process, no opportunity for me or any other editor to address any recommendations, and I didn't get any notification that a review was underway at all. Nor are there any comments about article structure, content or phrasaeology, etc.
Surely this isn't how the process is supposed to work? I was expecting an interactive process where someone would make constructive suggestions, and we would have a chance to work on them before getting to the review outcome.
I will work on the citations. But, meanwhile, can I revert the GA close to put the article back on the list, because process hasn't been followed? MapReader ( talk) 06:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
A quick fail is not the end of the world.In these current days when GA nominations can wait for as long as ten months, a quick fail can very much be extremely discouraging if the nominator has been waiting for a long time. You are comparatively new to GA reviewing, so you should definitely consider allowing more slack. A typical hold period is seven days; why not allow seven days to see whether the sourcing issues can be addressed? It hurts no one, and epicgenius's example of Park51 is telling: if only eight cites are needed, it should easily be solved with a standard hold, as could the removal of unnecessary cites, which is simply not a quickfail criterion. Finally, if you yourself are adding the templates, then it is also not a quickfail criterion: this refers to articles that already have been templated before you got to them. Again, Park51 was not eligible for a quickfail per the GA criteria. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
You won the special exemption to which you feel you are entitledand
Why not be content with your special status as you go on your merry way ignoring the standards?. This wasn't the case for me, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case for you, either. These standards weren't ignored at all, let alone on purpose; this editor is just being intractable and doubles down when consensus is against them (see WT:GAN#Talk:Park51/GA1). I have replaced your nomination in the queue, so a new nominator could review. epicgenius ( talk) 02:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Experienced good article reviewers from the community may wish to assist in supervising the new editor reviewing Talk:Pushpagiri Temple Complex/GA1. TheDragonFire ( talk) 03:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a question, but I'm ready for GA review on David Meade (author) if anybody would like to review it. -- LovelyGirl7 talk 20:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to put this article up for GAR. Are there any guidelines as to the most appropriate category to place a school article in? History / Geography / Art and Architecture? Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 09:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
How many articles can a single user nominate? I know in FA, it's only one but I don't know about GA. Tintor2 ( talk) 23:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This has been placed at Wikipedia:Requests for closure - could someone experienced in the GA reassessment process please review/close this assessment? Thanks. Fish+ Karate 12:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey, How do I move categories? I submitted corallivore as earth science but it should be in biology and medicine. I tried updating the talk page but it didn't seem to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilosauridae ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Legobot says it's New, however it's not actually appearing on the nominations page. Can't figure out why it's not working. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
If I have reviews that are on hold, can I start another review or do I need to wait for it to conclude and process them one at a time? Basilosauridae ( talk) 16:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
What is the minimum amount of content necessary for the biography section of an article about a contemporary person for that article to satisfy Good article criterion three, especially 3a? Are there any guidelines or essays, or even examples of Good articles on contemporary persons with sparse biographic information, that I can consult? Alternatively, if any experienced Good article creator or reviewer is willing to provide their opinion, it would be greatly appreciated.
For example, if I am unable to find any information on the person's early life, such as their birth date or place or parents or upbringing, can an article that is missing such information still pass as a Good article? What about if the bulk of information on the subject is about public activities later in life (such as writings, activism, etc.) and personal information about them is almost entirely lacking? Thanks for your time. — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
As I was recently passing a song to a GA article, it occurred to me that quite often the song can be placed in different years. Let's take an example song "X", which was recorded in 2009, however, it was only released as a single in 2010 and it was released on the album in the next year (2011). I'm reviewing the article, I pass it...in which year do I place the song? I have been placing them in the year they are released as a single, but am I doing this right? It might seem like a dumb question. If someone can enlight me it would be great.
Thank You. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 13:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Last year, I did some work on the article Quantum nonlocality and submitted it for GA status. After a while, the article was reviewed by User:DoctorG, who made a number of useful points about the article, which now that I have a little more time to spend on the article, I intend to look over again. However, as you can see on the page, we ran into an argument about plagiarised content within the article. In particular, it was claimed that part of the lede had appeared in a conference journal from 2012, and that since the opening sentence gathered a lot of hits on google, that it to was plagiarised. Having run the article through the GA plagiarism checker, and having it come up clean, I tried quite hard to find the offending sentence and the journal article, but was unable to. I asked repeatedly for the reference so I could verify which part of the article was plagiarised, but this was refused by the reviewer. In addition, the claim that the first sentence is plagiarised is demonstrably false; on the talk page for the article you can find a reasonably lengthy discussion of what the first sentence should be between a number of editors, myself included. In addition I cannot find any page with matching text to this one, other than (many) pages that repeat this page's content verbatim. I would like to resubmit the article for GA but I am concerned that it is impossible for me to deal with a plagiarism issue that I cannot myself identify in any way, and I would like guidance if possible. The only text I can find anywhere that appears in a reputable journal article is the phrase "Experiments have generally favoured quantum mechanics as a description of nature, over local hidden variable theories", which occurs in an 2014 article, though not from the journal claimed from the reviewer. However the text has been on the wiki article since 2013, implying that the plagiarism is in the other direction, as with all the other examples I have been able to find. Porphyro ( talk) 16:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I came across this the other day that most of, if not all, of the wrestling bios are missing pieces from their pages pertaining to finishing moves, signature moves, nicknames, managers, and theme music.
The pages use to contain theme and I was wondering why they were gone.
Any explanation would be great.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jman2k3 ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Would some mind taking a look at this article and verify whether it’s a GA. Another editor upgraded it to GA status earlier today, but I can’t find any record of a formal review. I’ve reverted them, but if the article really is a GA, feel free to revert back. Thanks in advance. — Marchjuly ( talk) 11:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I am
reviewing
Denise Vernay, but my
bold attempt to resolve concerns about original research, neutrality, and focus that I had previously mentioned on the review page were reverted by a third editor. I therefore requested a second opinion, but
47thPennVols then wrote rather than asking for a second opinion at this juncture, I'll be placing the article on hold, and am asking that you cease your editing
. First, I thought that putting on hold was something that the reviewer did, rather than the nominator, and second, I would like to gently point out that, while I appreciate their contributions, PennVols does not
WP:OWN the article.
Catrìona (
talk)
03:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that one of the pages I edit regularly was nominated as a Good Article. However, the same person who nominated it, made themselves the reviewer too. From what I know, it is againt WP:GAREVIEW. So what is the best thing to do so another editor can evaluate it? ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 ( talk) 13:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Talk:South Polar region of the Cretaceous/GA1 was accidentally started by the co-nominator, do I nominate the page for deletion or close it and start GA2? User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 00:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I nominated Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Double Down to be a good article, but now I'm having second thoughts. Now that I'm more familiar with the Manual of Style, I think the plot summary is too long, and the article is not notable and rather short. There hasn't been a review yet. Do I just remove the GA nominee template? Scrooge200 ( talk) 02:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I've recently put up a review of Tony Kornheiser. However, the nominator seems to be on a small break (last posted on February 18). I've put the review on hold, but as the subject is a bit of a hybrid (sports journalist, with radio and NFL commentary), I'm not really sure which wikiproject to ping to fix the issues. Any ideas? I don't feel comfortable failing a review when it's been waiting for 8 months. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
A reviewer passed the article Mineral evolution, but a day later the bot has still not updated it. Was there something wrong with the process? RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) ( talk) 21:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how great of a problem this is, but I thought I'd rather give you a head's up. I have done five GA reviews so far ( Girl's Garden, Sky Skipper, Steam Heart's, V-Rally, and NHL 96), yet it only says 2 whenever I do a new review. Also the bot registers my reviews either extremely slowly (up to 2 days later) or not all, or puts it under the article when my review is already finished. I have no idea whether these issues are related or if it is somehow caused by me, I just thought I'd let you know.-- DasallmächtigeJ ( talk) 12:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
So a reviewer selected one of my articles to review, however, at the moment, he seems to be busy and told to me find a new reviewer. I was wondering if someone would mind taking a look and review the article.
Thank you. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 18:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I put Doki Doki Literature Club! up for a Good Article nomination on the 1st, and I have concerns over how quickly the article had been passed and the reviewer's credentials. The review began the day after nomination, and it was concluded and passed within the same day. The review's concluding summary is only vaguely positive, and the review itself doesn't suggest any particular improvements, which is contrary to my past experience with the Good Article nominations I had put forward prior. Aside from that, the reviewer had only registered his account two days before the review and not only does he have no other experience in reviewing, he has made no contributions to any video game-related articles whatsoever. As much as I'd like to see this article promoted, I don't feel right having it be done so hastily and would like a second opinion on the matter. However, if this isn't a legitimate issue, then I apologize for my skepticism. Cat's Tuxedo ( talk) 05:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Here, and this IP has no contributions nor did it say anything about the review. To me this seems like a mistake. Thoughts? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
GA review for Raja Harishchandra started on 8 March 2019. However, the reviewer is not active on WP since 9 March 2019. Its more than 2 months but there are no comments by the reviewer. Can anyone take a look at the article and its review? - Vivvt ( Talk) 16:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems like after a couple of months, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Coropuna/1 does seem to be trending towards keeping its GA status based on the few comments so far but it's a reassessment I requested on an article which I largely wrote. Is there a procedure here? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I want to help closing GARs. I tried to close the GAR for green, but I keep getting the error "invalid action code GAR" [5]. What should I do? StoryKai ( talk) 20:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
(I posted this at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment three weeks ago but have not received an answer. Maybe no one was reading it due to Framgate; maybe no one is reading that forum any more.)
I subjected Laozi to a thorough critique at the end of May & no one has responded. Should it be left open, or delisted? Yes, I could fix the problems, but I'd rather have the article delisted before I subject it to a more thorough rewrite addressing the problems I raised, then re-nominated to GA. That way would avoid any accusation of stealing GA credit for myself. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I started reviewing Talk:Warcraft (film)/GA1 on August 8 and only a few of the easy fixes have been completed since August 9. I can be patient about it, but I don't know if it meets the criteria for a fail at this time. SL93 ( talk) 22:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I passed Thuy Trang, but the GA icon was never added and the nominator was never notified. SL93 ( talk) 14:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello all; have I missed something with the above named film? I cannot see any evidence of a GA review for Wallace And Gromit The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit, but one seems to have been appended by this diff [6]. I cannot find any history of GA template being applied anywhere. I am assuming this is vandalism, but thought it worth a check. Regards. The joy of all things ( talk) 10:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The reviewer of the article has not commented on the GA for a couple of months, but is still active. Based on the review, i think he was going to Quick Pass, but taking a quick look, I could see a couple or problems including dead links in the references. May need a second opinion.
@ An1alias: Pinging in case you want to continue the review. Jerry ( talk) 22:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC) @ JerrySa1: not too interested in reviewing good article nominees at the moment, i might get back to you later User:An1alias ( talk) 09:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The {{ good article}} tag has been removed from this article by Cygnis insignis; although a brief comment was posted on the article talk page, my concern is that the WP:GAR process has not been correctly followed. I have no opinion on the quality of the article so a delisting may be the right call, but perhaps someone else could take a look and either restore the tag or delist it properly? PC78 ( talk) 16:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
For some reason the green icon hasn't appeared here. I think maybe we upset Legobot by moving the article midway through the review. Do we just add the template manually or is there some more proper way to fix this? Haukur ( talk) 23:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I am reviewing Aneurin Bevan for GA. Please see Talk:Aneurin_Bevan/GA1#References/Notes which raised something about references I am not sure about. Probably not a major issue. Thanks, Amitchell125 ( talk) 16:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing the above for GA. Three of the sources are documentaries about the theatre, hosted on YouTube. The videos are clearly professionally produced and the article's main editor indicates that the contributors are respected professionals, e.g. President of the theatre foundation, architectural historian etc. Production is by TV URBE, the channel of Universidad Rafael Belloso Chacín, one of Venezuela's largest private universities. To me, they seem fine as sources, and this Wikipedia:Video links appears to support that view. But this isn't my area of expertise and I'd be grateful for any input from editors who do specialise in sources. Shall also post on the FAC page as I'd be interested in thoughts from there. Thanks in advance. KJP1 ( talk) 11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.
I started a review on Battle of Huế/GA1 a while ago and have just noticed that it is not showing as under review on the Nominations page. Have I done something wrong? Likewise Mayaguez incident. Gog the Mild ( talk) 01:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, just a note to those who watch this page that there's a discussion considering consolidating the GA-related talk pages here. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Cheers. Ajpolino ( talk) 16:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It's a thorny issue that I would welcome some outside perspective on - need outside opinions as to the usage of President/president within this article. Please respond at Talk:Assassination of Abraham Lincoln/GA1 in the ->>>Outside opinions regarding President/president section. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 02:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I enjoy tracking which articles I've worked on that have been promoted as quality content at other Wikipedia language projects. For example, Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall has also been promoted at Spanish Wikipedia ( es:Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall).
Is there a way to request that a promoted article at English Wikipedia be translated and promoted at other Wikipedias, too? So, for instance, could I request the translation and promotion of Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall at French Wikipedia? I'm not seeing something like this in any of the translation-related pages, but it would be nice if multilingual folks could more easily promote content based on already-promoted content here or elsewhere.
Just a thought, and wondering if anyone else might have other thoughts. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, my nomination of America's 60 Families was taken up for review by a relatively new editor with less than 500 edits [1], which itself is fine. However, I've had some difficulty communicating with them. The review was opened on January 5 and has stalled out as they've only logged-in to WP once in the last three weeks [2]. Would it be possible for someone to take-over this review (even if it's just to take it over to fail it, so I can reapply and get it back in the queue)? Thanks. DarjeelingTea ( talk) 23:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I recently promoted Louis B. Seltzer to GA status, however, the icon has not appeared on the page, nor has the automated template notification posted to Bobnorwal's talk page. Did I miss a step? DarjeelingTea ( talk) 07:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to request aGA reassessment of Al-Shorta SC. I thought I did it right by creating Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Shorta SC/1, but then felt I screwed things up and created Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Al-Shorta SC/2. I think the latter is the correct way it should have been done per the instructions given for community reassessment on the main page, but I'm not sure. I'm also not sure what to do with the first page I created. Can I just request speedy deletion or should it be redirected? FWIW, the editor who reviewed the article and passed it through to GA and who also commented on the first subpage has been checkuser confirmed to be a sockpuppet of the GA nominator of the article, so not sure how that affects anything and if a GA reassessment is even necessary now that it seems to have been inappropriately given in the first place. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi to all. An editor I met at the Teahouse (a newbie) has asked me, at different times over the past month, to review 3 different articles for them (see my talk page). I've completed 2 and have just started the third. These are all topics I don't edit in (one was a sports player, one was a lighthouse and the current one is a science article). I guess that's a good thing, because that makes it easier to be objective. I'm just curious as to whether I'm wrong in accepting requests like this, especially multiple ones. If I am wrong, I won't accept anymore. I don't want to say anything to the editor yet because they are genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia, and I sure DON'T want to discourage that. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
About five months ago, I nominated the article Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too for GA consideration. However, now that it is number 5 on the list of articles to be reviewed, I need to freeze it/put it on hold. For the better part of May, I will be unable to access the Internet, and will not be able to make requested changes if it's reviewed while I'm offline. Does anyone know how I can make sure the article isn't reviewed until after I'm back online?
Thanks, Anotheronewiki ( talk) 20:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Both "Finn the Human" (Adventure Time episode) and "Jake the Dog" (Adventure Time episode) have been identified as Good articles. Now they merged into a new article, "Finn the Human" / "Jake the Dog" and it is currently listed as Good article without any assessment. I think it should be reassessed.-- Namoroka ( talk) 13:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
On 23 March I nominated the Marcel Lihau for GA status. Though this nomination is acknowledged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo's automated processes, I cannot find it in the master list. Can this be fixed? - Indy beetle ( talk) 03:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Somebody please fix my syntax...or, wait, did I get it right after all? Drmies ( talk) 17:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
At WP:Good articles/recent, it looks like User:Jarry1250's User:LivingBot missed the Prayer of Saint Francis article that was promoted to GA this morning (5 June). This automated update now has failed for two of my three times through the GA process, but maybe I'm especially unlucky. For this morning's article, was there a human procedure that got overlooked somehow, or was the bot malfunctioning? — Patrug ( talk) 20:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a problem with a review here Talk:Defeating_ISIS/GA1 — I am not sure if a 4 day old article with only one significant contributor can pass the stability criteria. I also don't think the article satisfies the well-written criteria yet. The editor has become very upset, and is now demanding that I not review any more of their articles. I could use some assistance before I close. Thank you, Seraphim System ( talk) 17:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I recently visited the talk page of the GA article Rebecca Anderson and noticed that it had not been assessed in one of its WikiProject boxes (despite being rated 'Good Article' in all other boxes). Am I allowed to rate the article 'GA' in this one empty WikiProject box, despite the fact that I am neither a nominator or a reviewer for this article? Alanna the Brave ( talk) 21:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
What are the practical advantages of getting an article to "good article" status? Are there editors/bots who add them to their watchlists to keep an eye on them? Thanks.-- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 08:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey! I built a tool[dead link] that might be of interest to some of you. It pulls down the list of good article nominations and sorts them by ORES rating. There a couple of little things to note. Everything is done client-side every page refresh, so it will take a minute to process everything. There is a reason that some articles appear to sort out-of-order (articles are sorted by GA and FA probability added together, which in some instances conflicts with the predicted class returned by ORES that is printed next to each article). Feedback is appreciated. I might do work on making it prettier later, or having a bot post the report onwiki as a supplement to WP:GANR. TheDragonFire ( talk) 14:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't find it? I'd like to update my GAs/GARs. — Calvin999 14:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I have returned to WP editing after absence of a few years to find that some of the articles I did most work on have recently got GA status. For example I have written most the prose and did most of the sourcing for Sylvia Plath - I am the top content adder for the article. (The GA nominator did no work on the article - it seems like a drive by nom.) What are the rules about using the GA icon on my user page? Thanks Anna ( talk) 14:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
A while back I nominated the page Pumi dog for GA review. Today I see that an editor has covered the page in citation tags (some reasonable and some not - the majority for already-cited facts where a mid-para citation simply needs moving to end para), and then closed the review as a fail. As far as I can see there was no review process, no opportunity for me or any other editor to address any recommendations, and I didn't get any notification that a review was underway at all. Nor are there any comments about article structure, content or phrasaeology, etc.
Surely this isn't how the process is supposed to work? I was expecting an interactive process where someone would make constructive suggestions, and we would have a chance to work on them before getting to the review outcome.
I will work on the citations. But, meanwhile, can I revert the GA close to put the article back on the list, because process hasn't been followed? MapReader ( talk) 06:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
A quick fail is not the end of the world.In these current days when GA nominations can wait for as long as ten months, a quick fail can very much be extremely discouraging if the nominator has been waiting for a long time. You are comparatively new to GA reviewing, so you should definitely consider allowing more slack. A typical hold period is seven days; why not allow seven days to see whether the sourcing issues can be addressed? It hurts no one, and epicgenius's example of Park51 is telling: if only eight cites are needed, it should easily be solved with a standard hold, as could the removal of unnecessary cites, which is simply not a quickfail criterion. Finally, if you yourself are adding the templates, then it is also not a quickfail criterion: this refers to articles that already have been templated before you got to them. Again, Park51 was not eligible for a quickfail per the GA criteria. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
You won the special exemption to which you feel you are entitledand
Why not be content with your special status as you go on your merry way ignoring the standards?. This wasn't the case for me, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case for you, either. These standards weren't ignored at all, let alone on purpose; this editor is just being intractable and doubles down when consensus is against them (see WT:GAN#Talk:Park51/GA1). I have replaced your nomination in the queue, so a new nominator could review. epicgenius ( talk) 02:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Experienced good article reviewers from the community may wish to assist in supervising the new editor reviewing Talk:Pushpagiri Temple Complex/GA1. TheDragonFire ( talk) 03:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a question, but I'm ready for GA review on David Meade (author) if anybody would like to review it. -- LovelyGirl7 talk 20:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to put this article up for GAR. Are there any guidelines as to the most appropriate category to place a school article in? History / Geography / Art and Architecture? Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 09:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
How many articles can a single user nominate? I know in FA, it's only one but I don't know about GA. Tintor2 ( talk) 23:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
This has been placed at Wikipedia:Requests for closure - could someone experienced in the GA reassessment process please review/close this assessment? Thanks. Fish+ Karate 12:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Hey, How do I move categories? I submitted corallivore as earth science but it should be in biology and medicine. I tried updating the talk page but it didn't seem to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basilosauridae ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Legobot says it's New, however it's not actually appearing on the nominations page. Can't figure out why it's not working. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
If I have reviews that are on hold, can I start another review or do I need to wait for it to conclude and process them one at a time? Basilosauridae ( talk) 16:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
What is the minimum amount of content necessary for the biography section of an article about a contemporary person for that article to satisfy Good article criterion three, especially 3a? Are there any guidelines or essays, or even examples of Good articles on contemporary persons with sparse biographic information, that I can consult? Alternatively, if any experienced Good article creator or reviewer is willing to provide their opinion, it would be greatly appreciated.
For example, if I am unable to find any information on the person's early life, such as their birth date or place or parents or upbringing, can an article that is missing such information still pass as a Good article? What about if the bulk of information on the subject is about public activities later in life (such as writings, activism, etc.) and personal information about them is almost entirely lacking? Thanks for your time. — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
As I was recently passing a song to a GA article, it occurred to me that quite often the song can be placed in different years. Let's take an example song "X", which was recorded in 2009, however, it was only released as a single in 2010 and it was released on the album in the next year (2011). I'm reviewing the article, I pass it...in which year do I place the song? I have been placing them in the year they are released as a single, but am I doing this right? It might seem like a dumb question. If someone can enlight me it would be great.
Thank You. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 13:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Last year, I did some work on the article Quantum nonlocality and submitted it for GA status. After a while, the article was reviewed by User:DoctorG, who made a number of useful points about the article, which now that I have a little more time to spend on the article, I intend to look over again. However, as you can see on the page, we ran into an argument about plagiarised content within the article. In particular, it was claimed that part of the lede had appeared in a conference journal from 2012, and that since the opening sentence gathered a lot of hits on google, that it to was plagiarised. Having run the article through the GA plagiarism checker, and having it come up clean, I tried quite hard to find the offending sentence and the journal article, but was unable to. I asked repeatedly for the reference so I could verify which part of the article was plagiarised, but this was refused by the reviewer. In addition, the claim that the first sentence is plagiarised is demonstrably false; on the talk page for the article you can find a reasonably lengthy discussion of what the first sentence should be between a number of editors, myself included. In addition I cannot find any page with matching text to this one, other than (many) pages that repeat this page's content verbatim. I would like to resubmit the article for GA but I am concerned that it is impossible for me to deal with a plagiarism issue that I cannot myself identify in any way, and I would like guidance if possible. The only text I can find anywhere that appears in a reputable journal article is the phrase "Experiments have generally favoured quantum mechanics as a description of nature, over local hidden variable theories", which occurs in an 2014 article, though not from the journal claimed from the reviewer. However the text has been on the wiki article since 2013, implying that the plagiarism is in the other direction, as with all the other examples I have been able to find. Porphyro ( talk) 16:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I came across this the other day that most of, if not all, of the wrestling bios are missing pieces from their pages pertaining to finishing moves, signature moves, nicknames, managers, and theme music.
The pages use to contain theme and I was wondering why they were gone.
Any explanation would be great.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jman2k3 ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Would some mind taking a look at this article and verify whether it’s a GA. Another editor upgraded it to GA status earlier today, but I can’t find any record of a formal review. I’ve reverted them, but if the article really is a GA, feel free to revert back. Thanks in advance. — Marchjuly ( talk) 11:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I am
reviewing
Denise Vernay, but my
bold attempt to resolve concerns about original research, neutrality, and focus that I had previously mentioned on the review page were reverted by a third editor. I therefore requested a second opinion, but
47thPennVols then wrote rather than asking for a second opinion at this juncture, I'll be placing the article on hold, and am asking that you cease your editing
. First, I thought that putting on hold was something that the reviewer did, rather than the nominator, and second, I would like to gently point out that, while I appreciate their contributions, PennVols does not
WP:OWN the article.
Catrìona (
talk)
03:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that one of the pages I edit regularly was nominated as a Good Article. However, the same person who nominated it, made themselves the reviewer too. From what I know, it is againt WP:GAREVIEW. So what is the best thing to do so another editor can evaluate it? ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 ( talk) 13:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Talk:South Polar region of the Cretaceous/GA1 was accidentally started by the co-nominator, do I nominate the page for deletion or close it and start GA2? User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 00:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I nominated Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Double Down to be a good article, but now I'm having second thoughts. Now that I'm more familiar with the Manual of Style, I think the plot summary is too long, and the article is not notable and rather short. There hasn't been a review yet. Do I just remove the GA nominee template? Scrooge200 ( talk) 02:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I've recently put up a review of Tony Kornheiser. However, the nominator seems to be on a small break (last posted on February 18). I've put the review on hold, but as the subject is a bit of a hybrid (sports journalist, with radio and NFL commentary), I'm not really sure which wikiproject to ping to fix the issues. Any ideas? I don't feel comfortable failing a review when it's been waiting for 8 months. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
A reviewer passed the article Mineral evolution, but a day later the bot has still not updated it. Was there something wrong with the process? RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) ( talk) 21:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how great of a problem this is, but I thought I'd rather give you a head's up. I have done five GA reviews so far ( Girl's Garden, Sky Skipper, Steam Heart's, V-Rally, and NHL 96), yet it only says 2 whenever I do a new review. Also the bot registers my reviews either extremely slowly (up to 2 days later) or not all, or puts it under the article when my review is already finished. I have no idea whether these issues are related or if it is somehow caused by me, I just thought I'd let you know.-- DasallmächtigeJ ( talk) 12:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
So a reviewer selected one of my articles to review, however, at the moment, he seems to be busy and told to me find a new reviewer. I was wondering if someone would mind taking a look and review the article.
Thank you. MarioSoulTruthFan ( talk) 18:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I put Doki Doki Literature Club! up for a Good Article nomination on the 1st, and I have concerns over how quickly the article had been passed and the reviewer's credentials. The review began the day after nomination, and it was concluded and passed within the same day. The review's concluding summary is only vaguely positive, and the review itself doesn't suggest any particular improvements, which is contrary to my past experience with the Good Article nominations I had put forward prior. Aside from that, the reviewer had only registered his account two days before the review and not only does he have no other experience in reviewing, he has made no contributions to any video game-related articles whatsoever. As much as I'd like to see this article promoted, I don't feel right having it be done so hastily and would like a second opinion on the matter. However, if this isn't a legitimate issue, then I apologize for my skepticism. Cat's Tuxedo ( talk) 05:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Here, and this IP has no contributions nor did it say anything about the review. To me this seems like a mistake. Thoughts? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
GA review for Raja Harishchandra started on 8 March 2019. However, the reviewer is not active on WP since 9 March 2019. Its more than 2 months but there are no comments by the reviewer. Can anyone take a look at the article and its review? - Vivvt ( Talk) 16:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems like after a couple of months, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Coropuna/1 does seem to be trending towards keeping its GA status based on the few comments so far but it's a reassessment I requested on an article which I largely wrote. Is there a procedure here? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I want to help closing GARs. I tried to close the GAR for green, but I keep getting the error "invalid action code GAR" [5]. What should I do? StoryKai ( talk) 20:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
(I posted this at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment three weeks ago but have not received an answer. Maybe no one was reading it due to Framgate; maybe no one is reading that forum any more.)
I subjected Laozi to a thorough critique at the end of May & no one has responded. Should it be left open, or delisted? Yes, I could fix the problems, but I'd rather have the article delisted before I subject it to a more thorough rewrite addressing the problems I raised, then re-nominated to GA. That way would avoid any accusation of stealing GA credit for myself. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I started reviewing Talk:Warcraft (film)/GA1 on August 8 and only a few of the easy fixes have been completed since August 9. I can be patient about it, but I don't know if it meets the criteria for a fail at this time. SL93 ( talk) 22:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I passed Thuy Trang, but the GA icon was never added and the nominator was never notified. SL93 ( talk) 14:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello all; have I missed something with the above named film? I cannot see any evidence of a GA review for Wallace And Gromit The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit, but one seems to have been appended by this diff [6]. I cannot find any history of GA template being applied anywhere. I am assuming this is vandalism, but thought it worth a check. Regards. The joy of all things ( talk) 10:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The reviewer of the article has not commented on the GA for a couple of months, but is still active. Based on the review, i think he was going to Quick Pass, but taking a quick look, I could see a couple or problems including dead links in the references. May need a second opinion.
@ An1alias: Pinging in case you want to continue the review. Jerry ( talk) 22:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC) @ JerrySa1: not too interested in reviewing good article nominees at the moment, i might get back to you later User:An1alias ( talk) 09:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The {{ good article}} tag has been removed from this article by Cygnis insignis; although a brief comment was posted on the article talk page, my concern is that the WP:GAR process has not been correctly followed. I have no opinion on the quality of the article so a delisting may be the right call, but perhaps someone else could take a look and either restore the tag or delist it properly? PC78 ( talk) 16:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
For some reason the green icon hasn't appeared here. I think maybe we upset Legobot by moving the article midway through the review. Do we just add the template manually or is there some more proper way to fix this? Haukur ( talk) 23:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I am reviewing Aneurin Bevan for GA. Please see Talk:Aneurin_Bevan/GA1#References/Notes which raised something about references I am not sure about. Probably not a major issue. Thanks, Amitchell125 ( talk) 16:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing the above for GA. Three of the sources are documentaries about the theatre, hosted on YouTube. The videos are clearly professionally produced and the article's main editor indicates that the contributors are respected professionals, e.g. President of the theatre foundation, architectural historian etc. Production is by TV URBE, the channel of Universidad Rafael Belloso Chacín, one of Venezuela's largest private universities. To me, they seem fine as sources, and this Wikipedia:Video links appears to support that view. But this isn't my area of expertise and I'd be grateful for any input from editors who do specialise in sources. Shall also post on the FAC page as I'd be interested in thoughts from there. Thanks in advance. KJP1 ( talk) 11:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK.
I started a review on Battle of Huế/GA1 a while ago and have just noticed that it is not showing as under review on the Nominations page. Have I done something wrong? Likewise Mayaguez incident. Gog the Mild ( talk) 01:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, just a note to those who watch this page that there's a discussion considering consolidating the GA-related talk pages here. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Cheers. Ajpolino ( talk) 16:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)